Eyes W.S. - Is it that bad?
m...@pacbell.net
during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
intriguing.
hamilton
It isn't a movie for frat boys.
HBOMB
the film than with it.
--
"Gentleman, there's no fighting in here. This is the war room!"
<m...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:3797D5...@pacbell.net...
Jeffrey Davis
>
> Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
> during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
> it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
> intriguing.
It has more than its share of groaners in it. Kubrick has control of the
camera and his little tokens of meaning (symbols and such) are
manipulated w/ ease. But his characters don't make a lot of sense, and
their situations are implausible at best and comic when they should be
most serious. So, at one and the same time, Kubrick's fans can claim a
masterpiece and his detractors can wonder what the heck his admirers are
thinking of. I'm a Kubrick detractor of long-standing, but the premise
of the film and Kubrick's ease at setting it up had me thinking he had
finished off his career like Yeats. Unfortunately, once Kidman tells
Cruise about her fantasy about the naval officer, the Cruise character
quits acting like a human being and starts acting like a puppet
manipulated by the author.
The relative lack of discussion is telling. Eyes Wide Shut, in national
release, doesn't have half the discussion of The Blair Witch Project,
which is in limited release. There just isn't that much to Eyes Wide
Shut and what there is, despite the celebrated nudity, is a bit dull.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
MasonBarge
>masterpiece and his detractors can wonder what the heck his admirers are
>thinking of. I'm a Kubrick detractor of long-standing, but the premise
>of the film and Kubrick's ease at setting it up had me thinking he had
>finished off his career like Yeats. Unfortunately, once Kidman tells
>Cruise about her fantasy about the naval officer, the Cruise character
>quits acting like a human being and starts acting like a puppet
>manipulated by the author.
>--
>Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
That's funny, Jeff, I had just the opposite reaction. I'm not a huge
Kubrick-lover, but I liked EWS a lot. And the opening had me squirming up
until the point where Cruise begins his odyssey to the Underworld, at which
(for me) it really took off.
So I guess the conclusion is that the key to enjoyment, the "make it or break
it", lies in whether you like Cruise's long semi-surreal voyage. If you're
looking for plot, you're out of luck. I did my senior thesis on Ulysses (Joyce,
not Homer) so maybe it had extra resonance for that reason. But I did really
love it. And actually there is a strong plot, it's just hidden behind
characters who are, in a sense, worse than implausible.
I bet a lit. student with time on his hands could even trace Cruise's various
adventures to the monsters and such in the original Odyssey. But it seems
pretty likely, if not certain, that Kubrick had Ulysses consciously in mind
when he conceived this.
Anyway, I have two things to say about it. First, it was beautifully filmed.
He really seemed to accomplish his goal with the sets and cinematography.
Secondly, I don't find the lack of discussion relative to the Blair Witch
Project any more relevant than the box office to determining the film's value.
And actually, for me, the points at which the film is weakest is where Kubrick
tries to make it "realistic", such as the scene where Pollock partially
explains the masked ball. I wish he'd just let the people who weren't going to
like the movie anyway complain about lack of realism.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
sli...@tugger.net
> the film than with it.
Then again, they all probably were teary-eyed during "Titanic". Don't
base a film on the reaction of those around you.
j r sherman
>Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
>during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
>intriguing.
no it wasn't that bad at all. in fact, it was quite good.
i supposed that people walked out because they were disappointed that
there was no car chase or laser gun battle in the film.
it was an adult film, made for adults, by an adult, a novel concept in
this era.
j r sherman
hamilton
It doesn't get any more adult than a film focused on fidelity and its
ramifications in the life of a married couple. Strong interesting film.
Jeffrey Davis
>
> >So, at one and the same time, Kubrick's fans can claim a
> >masterpiece and his detractors can wonder what the heck his admirers are
> >thinking of. I'm a Kubrick detractor of long-standing, but the premise
> >of the film and Kubrick's ease at setting it up had me thinking he had
> >finished off his career like Yeats. Unfortunately, once Kidman tells
> >Cruise about her fantasy about the naval officer, the Cruise character
> >quits acting like a human being and starts acting like a puppet
> >manipulated by the author.
>
> Kubrick-lover, but I liked EWS a lot. And the opening had me squirming up
> until the point where Cruise begins his odyssey to the Underworld, at which
> (for me) it really took off.
>
> So I guess the conclusion is that the key to enjoyment, the "make it or break
> it", lies in whether you like Cruise's long semi-surreal voyage. If you're
> looking for plot, you're out of luck. I did my senior thesis on Ulysses (Joyce,
> not Homer) so maybe it had extra resonance for that reason. But I did really
> love it. And actually there is a strong plot, it's just hidden behind
> characters who are, in a sense, worse than implausible.
>
> I bet a lit. student with time on his hands could even trace Cruise's various
> adventures to the monsters and such in the original Odyssey. But it seems
> pretty likely, if not certain, that Kubrick had Ulysses consciously in mind
> when he conceived this.
The movie seems to have The Dead and Ulysses as its models: the premise
is too much like The Dead for it not to be intentional. The working out
-- w/ the wandering and the Walpurgisnacht -- chimes easily w/ Ulysses.
The problem for me isn't in the scaffolding of the story. As I noted,
Kubrick manipulates his little symbolic game pieces w/ ease and
deftness. The problem is that the human behavior doesn't resemble anyone
or any situation I know. Joyce's aesthetic, along w/ his enjoyment in
twinned stories, was formed as much by Twain as by Flaubert. His people,
even the smallest character, speak in recognizable, genuine voices.
Kubrick's characters are often either affectless cut-outs or behave in
unrecognizable ways. Early Kubrick didn't have that problem, but after
he learned the unsavory joy of modernism by adapting Lolita, he was a
goner. [gonner?]
Joel Mack
>> Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
>> during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>> it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
>> intriguing.
> It isn't a movie for frat boys.
Or high-school girls looking to see Tom Cruise's peepee, like the ones
that sat behind me...
j r sherman
wrote:
>In article <37989258.3080137@news>, jr...@wenet.net (j r sherman ) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:37:08 -0700, m...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>> >Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
>> >during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>> >it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
>> >intriguing.
>>
>>
>> no it wasn't that bad at all. in fact, it was quite good.
>>
>> i supposed that people walked out because they were disappointed that
>> there was no car chase or laser gun battle in the film.
>>
>> it was an adult film, made for adults, by an adult, a novel concept in
>> this era.
>>
>> j r sherman
>
>It doesn't get any more adult than a film focused on fidelity and its
>ramifications in the life of a married couple. Strong interesting film.
adult meaning grownup, more depth, that sort of thing. not adult as in
X-rated adult movies.
j r sherman
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>The relative lack of discussion is telling. Eyes Wide Shut, in national
>release, doesn't have half the discussion of The Blair Witch Project,
>which is in limited release. There just isn't that much to Eyes Wide
>Shut and what there is, despite the celebrated nudity, is a bit dull.
>>>>
If currently there were a film of Madonna sucking donkey dick, it would
far out "discuss" EWS. The masses need entertainment, not art.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Jeffrey Davis
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
>
> >The relative lack of discussion is telling. Eyes Wide Shut, in national
> >release, doesn't have half the discussion of The Blair Witch Project,
> >which is in limited release. There just isn't that much to Eyes Wide
> >Shut and what there is, despite the celebrated nudity, is a bit dull.
>
> If currently there were a film of Madonna sucking donkey dick, it would
> far out "discuss" EWS. The masses need entertainment, not art.
We all need both. And calling Eyes Wide Shut 'art' doesn't really say
much.
But you've hit on a point that impressed me about Eyes Wide Shut. There
was a phase in Kubrick's life when almost all of his films were about
some kind of transcendent intelligence or transcendent moral presence.
Usually played by Stanley Kubrick. By the time Barry Lyndon rolled
around there's a different Kubrick. I think he identified w/ the con man
and that Barry Lyndon was an act of repentance for his (dreary, to me)
Gnostic ways. Think of the difference between Full Metal Jacket and Dr.
Strangelove. In Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick was content to paint the
military as completely insane while we, the knowing/nudge-nudge audience
could laugh at them. In Full Metal Jacket, he spent half the movie
playing that tune -- the military builds killing automatons -- but undid
that in the 2nd half: the training failed; Joker wasn't an automaton.
Here in Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick finally says explicitly, "I don't know
how to resolve this. I don't know what makes people tick. [What was I
thinking of with the 2001 crap?]" It's an interesting progression. So,
finally, what interests me about what you're saying is that it implies a
group who possesses some kind of transcendent intelligence. Kubrick, I
think, was moving away from that view and had been moving away from that
for some time.
synthuser
>
> Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
> during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
> it that bad?
Worse
> I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
> intriguing.
LOL! Well commercials are supposed to do that. Look
what they do for <insert stupid product here>.
--
"There are things in the night waiting
for children who stray out of the light."
MasonBarge
The Dead was actually the first thing that popped into my mind while I was
watching it. I think Kubrick fails on this point, though. The marriage
dynamic just didn't work for me. He lost me when NK was humoring that
Eurotrash seducer. My strong reaction was either that she was a total babbling
idiot with no taste if she could even stand to be around the guy, or that
Kubrick was failing to establish her as sympathetic. But it just didn't hang
together.
Obviously, what I loved about it was the "Ulysses" part. What was the tribe of
flesh eaters called, anyone remember? Lestrygonians maybe? Anyway, it would
be a mistake to be too literal about it, except maybe the whore turning him
into a swine.
I also see some vampire overtones here, from the Hungarian count to the hooded
cloak Dr. Bill rented for the party. He was very insistent about this, so
Kubrick was trying to make some kind of point about it.
>The problem is that the human behavior doesn't resemble anyone
>or any situation I know.
I think this is a valid criticism of the "framing plot", i.e. the Kidman
scenes. When Cruise is away from her, it is sufficiently surreal not to
require mimesis.
James Margaris
>
>>Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
>>during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>>intriguing.
>
>
>no it wasn't that bad at all. in fact, it was quite good.
>
>i supposed that people walked out because they were disappointed that
>there was no car chase or laser gun battle in the film.
>
>it was an adult film, made for adults, by an adult, a novel concept in
>this era.
It is rediculous to hand-wave away complaints about the film by saying
that they came from people expecting car chases and lasers. Is that the common
theme of these threads? Hardly.
Whether you agree or disagree with other's assessments of the movie,
you have to admit they are understandable complaints. Lack of believable
characterization is hardly equivalent to lack of car chases, and you would
expect an "adult" film to have better characterization than a fluff film.
James M
Rina
> It is rediculous to hand-wave away complaints about the film by
>saying
>that they came from people expecting car chases and lasers. Is that the
>common
>theme of these threads? Hardly.
>
> Whether you agree or disagree with other's assessments of the movie,
>you have to admit they are understandable complaints. Lack of believable
>characterization is hardly equivalent to lack of car chases, and you would
>expect an "adult" film to have better characterization than a fluff film.
>
>James M
>
>
Exactly. Thank you. I enjoy the more "arty" films as well as your general
popcorn movie. From my perspective, I still can't figure out just how this
movie is basically any different from any of the fare that comes on Cinemax
late at night.
You a big Pete Sampras fan?
http://www.egroups.com/group/samprasfanz
Jaguars rule Football! 2000 World Champs!
"and he thought he heard the echoes of a pennywhistle band, and the laughter
from a distant caravan"
Unbound I
>
>
>In article <37989258.3080137@news>, jr...@wenet.net (j r sherman ) wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:37:08 -0700, m...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>>>Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
>>>during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>>>it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
>>>intriguing.
>>
>>
>>no it wasn't that bad at all. in fact, it was quite good.
>>
>>i supposed that people walked out because they were disappointed that
>>there was no car chase or laser gun battle in the film.
>>
>>it was an adult film, made for adults, by an adult, a novel concept in
>>this era.
>
>
>saying
>that they came from people expecting car chases and lasers. Is that the
>common
>theme of these threads? Hardly.
>
> Whether you agree or disagree with other's assessments of the movie,
>you have to admit they are understandable complaints. Lack of believable
>characterization is hardly equivalent to lack of car chases, and you would
>expect an "adult" film to have better characterization than a fluff film.
>
>James M
>
>
>
other night. We're all adults over the age of 30 and they both hated the film
while I only liked "the attempt" at something different.
The big problem does come with characterization and motivation. I don't
believe it's asking any film (whether it be an "adult" film or an action movie)
to give us characters we can at least attempt to understand with behavior that
we can identify with on some level. But the big problem with EWS, for me
anyway, was the lack of motivation for Cruise's character (he gets pretty riled
up over one fantasy his wife has--I don't know too many people who would go to
that extreme over a thought). I agree his actions are a whirlwind tour of
temptation and guilt and jealousy but the motivation for why he did what he did
just wasn't there.
Now had he discovered his wife had actually had one night of passion with
someone else, there you have plenty of motivation. Perhaps that's too obvious
and too easy a way out for some, but at least it's characterization that fits
into the norm of human behavior. And with such logical behavior as a starting
point, then the journey that follows would be more easy to appreciate.
Having said all that (and given the fact I just didn't get Kidman's
character at all and what the hell her motviation was half the time she was
onscreen) I did apprecitate Kubrick's attempt to do something different.
Personally, I didn't think it worked as a complete package but there were some
interesting moments and I will say it was unlike any film I've seen in a while.
Unbound I
DscribeDC
>during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
>it that bad? I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
>intriguing.
>
>
plot holes and overacting. Guess the moral is that it's not that hard to make
a film look interesting for :30. If you haven't seen it, I'd say don't bother.
>
>
m...@pacbell.net
>
> m...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >
> > Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
> > during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie. Was
> > it that bad?
>
>
well, I guess I will wait until it comes out on video. Thanks for all
the input folks.
> > I haven't seen it be the commercials make it look very
> > intriguing.
>
> LOL! Well commercials are supposed to do that. Look
> what they do for <insert stupid product here>.
>
True enough but I remember seeing the teasers for Wild wild west and
thinking what a crappy movie it must be. Sometimes a trailor is a good
indicator of the movie.
m...@pacbell.net
>
> Yes, it was that bad. In Arlington, VA, there was much audience merriment over
> plot holes and overacting. Guess the moral is that it's not that hard to make
> a film look interesting for :30. If you haven't seen it, I'd say don't bother.
> >
> >
the library. ;-)
Eyes Wide MC4
> appreciated for the masterwork it is.
More like 10-15 years.
MC4
PJoh107291
who are unaware or oblivious of the source material, Traumnovelle by
Schnitzler. The film's adaptation and translation of that material to 90s
Manhattan is accomplished with subtlety and vision (as all of Kubrick's
adaptations are). It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
appreciated for the masterwork it is.
The only thing bad about Eyes Wide Shut is that it is being released at a time
when the art of filmmaking takes second place to the consumption of filmmaking.
James Margaris
>I have found that the majority of the negative Eyes reviews come from people
>who are unaware or oblivious of the source material, Traumnovelle by
>Schnitzler. The film's adaptation and translation of that material to 90s
>Manhattan is accomplished with subtlety and vision (as all of Kubrick's
>adaptations are). It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
>appreciated for the masterwork it is.
Urg...why should you have to be familiar with the source? The movie
should stand on it's own legs...who cares if the adaptation is great if the
movie is lousy? People don't go see movies as supplements to books nor should
they. Knowlege of the source might add something but the movie should still
shine without it.
James M
dutch society for world domination
m...@pacbell.net wrote in article <379B53...@pacbell.net>...
ack! have american audiences become THAT stupid?
go and see it. you won't regret it.
martijn
dutch society for world domination
m...@pacbell.net wrote in article <379B52...@pacbell.net>...
> synthuser wrote:
> >
> > m...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Los Angeles Weekly paper is reporting that people laughed and hooted
> > > during Eyes Wide Shut and that many people walked out of the movie.
Was
> > > it that bad?
> >
> > Worse
> >
> well, I guess I will wait until it comes out on video. Thanks for all
> the input folks.
for god's sake, don't listen to these idiots. no, it's not that bad. it's
INCREDIBLE. you just have to use your *brain* for once. so yes, go and see
it. don't wait for video. it won't be the same on video.
Dave Gates
> >I have found that the majority of the negative Eyes reviews come from people
> >who are unaware or oblivious of the source material, Traumnovelle by
> >Schnitzler.
Well, if these people can't even be bothered to know the most BASIC of
cultural references... :)
I mean, a filmmaker should be able to trust that his audience, for the
most part, has a few shared memories:
- Alice in Wonderland
- Hitler and WWII
- Traumnovelle by Schnitzler
- parts of the bible
- etc.
:)
--
Dave Gates
dave...@primenet.com
Del Stanley
>
> I have found that the majority of the negative Eyes reviews come from people
> who are unaware or oblivious of the source material, Traumnovelle by
> Manhattan is accomplished with subtlety and vision (as all of Kubrick's
> adaptations are). It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
> appreciated for the masterwork it is.
I know Schnitzler's work was credited, but I enjoyed the film without
reading the work. I don't know when it was written, but when I was
watching the orgy scene, I was reminded of another film, the
"Story Of O", whic I believe was based on a book. That was a much
shallower film, but its orgy scene in a french chateau run by a
wealthy class of men seemed to parallel the scene in EWS. It seemed
(to me) that in EWS, the "Story of O" scene was recreated, but this
time directed by David Lynch.
> The only thing bad about Eyes Wide Shut is that it is being released at a time
> when the art of filmmaking takes second place to the consumption of filmmaking.
Welcome to the age of special effects only. Audiences today don't
want to be burdened with thinking while watching a film. Many
films today are full of sound and fury signifying nothing. See the
"Haunting"? It is the latest example, but that's another thread.
Rina
>> appreciated for the masterwork it is.
>
>
Try 30 years.
Rina
>merriment over
>> > plot holes and overacting. Guess the moral is that it's not that hard
>to make
>> > a film look interesting for :30. If you haven't seen it, I'd say don't
>bother.
>> > >
>> > >
>> Gosh! Maybe it's not even worth renting, wait for a copy to show up at
>> the library. ;-)
>
>ack! have american audiences become THAT stupid?
>
>go and see it. you won't regret it.
>
>martijn
Yes, you will.
dutch society for world domination
Rina <dayd...@aol.comandgetit> wrote:
> >go and see it. you won't regret it.
> >
> >martijn
>
> Yes, you will.
you're a dumbass.
don't listen to him.
Del Stanley
>
> Do you think the characters were believable? The situations? C'mon. I
> for one would rather watch a short, "entertaining" movie like the haunting
> than a long and boring pointless farce. Of course I *would* prefer a "thinking
> movie," but first I have to find one.
>
Character believability? Are you kidding? In a age of Godzillas,
Star Wars, Terminators, Waterboys, and Gadget Man, you demand
character believability? Is Paccaso famous because he painted
"belieavable characters"? Many artists of varying genres made
their mark by creating "unbelievable characters". Kubrick's
"Dr. Strangelove" which received critical acclaim had some
"unblievable characters". Fellini had "unbelievable characters".
"Forest Gump" was an outstanding movie despite the "unbelievable
characters".
If you demand character believability, and believable situations
you're going to have some serious problems come the 21st century.
Mainly staying home and watching documentaries. But if you liked
those very believable characters in "The Haunting" perhaps all is
not lost for you. The world is full of mediocrity, dullness,
lack of imagination, and woefully lacking in artistry.
James Margaris
[clip]
>> The only thing bad about Eyes Wide Shut is that it is being released at a
> time
>> when the art of filmmaking takes second place to the consumption of
> filmmaking.
>
>Welcome to the age of special effects only. Audiences today don't
>want to be burdened with thinking while watching a film. Many
>films today are full of sound and fury signifying nothing. See the
>"Haunting"? It is the latest example, but that's another thread.
What is with you people? At least on this group, the critics of EWS
have good points and have thought *too much* about how the movie doesn't make
sense, has holes, a total lack of believable situations and characters, etc.
Meanwhile the defenders claim "you have to think" but never bother to mention
about what...
That is a cop-out. If the response was "not enough sex" or "no enough
action" you might have a point, but that has *not* been the response at all.
The problem with this movie is that if you *really* think instead of just
pretend to think it isn't that great.
Do you think the characters were believable? The situations? C'mon. I
for one would rather watch a short, "entertaining" movie like the haunting
than a long and boring pointless farce. Of course I *would* prefer a "thinking
movie," but first I have to find one.
James M
Rina
Him? LOL! Yes, this is the opinion you want to trust!
Rina
>
> What is with you people? At least on this group, the critics of EWS
>have good points and have thought *too much* about how the movie doesn't make
>
>sense, has holes, a total lack of believable situations and characters, etc.
>Meanwhile the defenders claim "you have to think" but never bother to mention
>
>about what...
>
> That is a cop-out. If the response was "not enough sex" or "no enough
>
>action" you might have a point, but that has *not* been the response at all.
>The problem with this movie is that if you *really* think instead of just
>pretend to think it isn't that great.
>
> Do you think the characters were believable? The situations? C'mon. I
>
>for one would rather watch a short, "entertaining" movie like the haunting
>than a long and boring pointless farce. Of course I *would* prefer a
>"thinking
>movie," but first I have to find one.
>
>James M
>
>
>
>
>
>
dutch society for world domination
Rina <dayd...@aol.comandgetit> wrote:
> You a big Pete Sampras fan?
> http://www.egroups.com/group/samprasfanz
>
> Jaguars rule Football! 2000 World Champs!
ummmm ...... 'nuff said.
nope, not trusting this guy's opinion.
see the movie.
Sam Worf
>In article <19990726015725...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, pjoh1...@aol.com (PJoh107291) wrote:
>>I have found that the majority of the negative Eyes reviews come from people
>>who are unaware or oblivious of the source material, Traumnovelle by
>>Schnitzler. The film's adaptation and translation of that material to 90s
>>Manhattan is accomplished with subtlety and vision (as all of Kubrick's
>>adaptations are). It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
>>appreciated for the masterwork it is.
>
> Urg...why should you have to be familiar with the source? The movie
>should stand on it's own legs...who cares if the adaptation is great if the
>movie is lousy? People don't go see movies as supplements to books nor should
>they. Knowlege of the source might add something but the movie should still
>shine without it.
It is also apparent that Kubrick deliberately tried to keep audiences
in the dark as to the source - reports are that he bought the rights
to Traumnovelle and pulled it from the shelves until the release of
the film. If the film required viewers to be familiar with the book,
why did Kubrick make the book impossible to find?
--
// / Sam Worf
GCV 3.12 \X/ / samworf-AT-newsguy-DOT-com
GFA d- s-: a26 C+(+++)>$ UI(--) W+(-) N+ w+(--) M+(--) PS++
PE- Y+ t+(---) 5+++(-) X+ R tv b++ DI++ D++ G e>++ h! !y+
Remove "spamblock" to reply / ICQ:407spam130block90
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rina
domination" and you try and laugh at my signature? ROFL!
"and he thought he heard the echoes of a pennywhistle band, and the laughter
from a distant caravan"
HBOMB
Rina <dayd...@aol.comandgetit> wrote in message
news:19990726184054...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> >> It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
> >> appreciated for the masterwork it is.
> >
> >More like 10-15 years.
> >
>
> Try 30 years.
Try never
--
"This one time in band camp I stuck a flute up my pussy!" - Alysson
Hannigan, 'American Pie'
James Margaris
>James Margaris wrote:
>>
>> Do you think the characters were believable? The situations? C'mon. I
>> for one would rather watch a short, "entertaining" movie like the haunting
>> than a long and boring pointless farce. Of course I *would* prefer a
> "thinking
>> movie," but first I have to find one.
>>
>Star Wars, Terminators, Waterboys, and Gadget Man, you demand
>character believability?
Yes, I do..is that a problem? Also, it depends on the type of
movie...in a spoof goofball comedy I can deal with un-believable characters,
although personally I don't really go for goofball comedy. You also can't
confuse believability of motivation and action with the actual character. For
example, in Terminator the existence of the terminator is fiction but the
terminators and the people who interact with them behave in a way that is
fairly convincing *if* you allow for the fact that terminators exist in the
first place.
So, I have no problem with Conan chooping the head off of James Earl
Jones, however if Conan had instead done a song and dance routine I would have
had problems. There is a big difference between allowing for unrealistic
settings and allowing for unrealistic character actions. A good sci-fi or
fantasy movie has characters that act right *for the situation.*
Now, if a film is a "masterpiece" and is supposed to be serious I
expect beleivable characters, as should everyone I think...creating a
believable character that still fits the movie is hard, but anybody can create
an unbelievable character who has no motivation or reason other than the
director manipulating them for his own reasons.
Is Paccaso famous because he painted
>"belieavable characters"? Many artists of varying genres made
>their mark by creating "unbelievable characters". Kubrick's
>"Dr. Strangelove" which received critical acclaim had some
>"unblievable characters".
Personally I find Dr.Strangelove to be an incredible bore, thanks in
part to the casts' insistance to play "I'm the stupidest character"
one-upsmanship, and also thanks in part to the fact that it drags, has no
comic timing and no jokes. But I digress. At least Strangelove is a comedy,
which is built in defense. EWS is not. A serious movie should have serious
characters. And don't compare painting to movie making; they are totally
different.
Fellini had "unbelievable characters".
>"Forest Gump" was an outstanding movie despite the "unbelievable
>characters".
>If you demand character believability, and believable situations
>you're going to have some serious problems come the 21st century.
I guess I won't see very many movies then...is it a bad thing to wich
for quality movies?
>Mainly staying home and watching documentaries.
Or I could watch good movies if someone made some.
But if you liked
>those very believable characters in "The Haunting" perhaps all is
>not lost for you. The world is full of mediocrity, dullness,
>lack of imagination, and woefully lacking in artistry.
You forgot to mention poor characterization. As for "The Haunting," I
didn't say I liked it OR that it was believable. Learn to read. I just said I
would rather watch a bad non-serious short movie than a bad serious long
movie.
James M
Jeffrey Davis
>
> >> It will probably take 2-3 years for the film to be
> >> appreciated for the masterwork it is.
> >
> >More like 10-15 years.
> >
>
> Try 30 years.
"Yes, Madam, Mr. Southey is a great poet. He will be read when Homer
and Virgil are forgotten."
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
MasonBarge
>>Star Wars, Terminators, Waterboys, and Gadget Man, you demand
>>character believability?
>
> Yes, I do..is that a problem? Also, it depends on the type of
>movie...in a spoof goofball comedy I can deal with un-believable characters,
>although personally I don't really go for goofball comedy. You also can't
>confuse believability of motivation and action with the actual character. For
>
>example, in Terminator the existence of the terminator is fiction but the
>terminators and the people who interact with them behave in a way that is
>fairly convincing *if* you allow for the fact that terminators exist in the
>first place.
>
> So, I have no problem with Conan chooping the head off of James Earl
>Jones, however if Conan had instead done a song and dance routine I would
>have
>had problems. There is a big difference between allowing for unrealistic
>settings and allowing for unrealistic character actions. A good sci-fi or
>fantasy movie has characters that act right *for the situation.*
Godzilla was a poorly-chosen example. The characters in this movie are not, in
fact, completely believable, and the people who criticize it so roundly are
people who demand to see a clearly visible plot, extremely mimetic characters.
But the movie is not like that. It is surreal and metaphorical. The whole
point is that the characters do strange things and you have to attempt to
explain them in your mind. Did you dislike 8 1/2 because people don't float
through the air like balloons, or (probably closer) The Seventh Seal because
the knight goes wandering around the countryside, occasionally appearing on the
beach to play chess with Death?
Anyway, people who don't like this kind of thing are going to hate Eyes Wide
Shut. People who like this sort of thing will find it a masterpiece. And the
only parts of the movie I disliked were the scenes that people who disliked the
movie thought were the best: where Kubrick tried to make it more "realistic",
including most of the scenes with Kidman.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Del Stanley
>>
> >Character believability? Are you kidding? In a age of Godzillas,
> >Star Wars, Terminators, Waterboys, and Gadget Man, you demand
> >character believability?
Yes, I do..is that a problem?
Also, it depends on the type of
> movie...in a spoof goofball comedy I can deal with un-believable characters,
> although personally I don't really go for goofball comedy. You also can't
> confuse believability of motivation and action with the actual character. For
> example, in Terminator the existence of the terminator is fiction but the
> terminators and the people who interact with them behave in a way that is
> fairly convincing *if* you allow for the fact that terminators exist in the
> first place.
And I allowed for the "fact" the characters existed in a surreal world
in EWS.
>
> There is a big difference between allowing for unrealistic
> settings and allowing for unrealistic character actions. A good sci-fi or
> fantasy movie has characters that act right *for the situation.*
And I thought Kubrick employed all the right characters for all the
right situations.
>
> Now, if a film is a "masterpiece" and is supposed to be serious I
> expect beleivable characters, as should everyone I think...creating a
> believable character that still fits the movie is hard, but anybody can create
> an unbelievable character who has no motivation or reason other than the
> director manipulating them for his own reasons.
All true artists manipulate a subject for their own reasons. That is
what they do. I thought Kubrick was quite serious. Of course "serious"
can be probematical. Would you have felt better if they had 9-5 jobs
with 2.5 kids, and a dog living in the suburbs and barbecuing?
Some people carry on quite a dull existence, and think it is the
only existence. And of course they enjoy the normalcy of their
lives, thank you very much. But there is a dark side to some people's
lives. Kubrick explored this. This world truly exists. The naive will
refuse to acknowledge that such lifestyles exist; they have their eyes
wide shut. They will dismiss the subject as "not serious".
>
> Is Paccaso famous because he painted
> >"belieavable characters"? Many artists of varying genres made
> >their mark by creating "unbelievable characters". Kubrick's
> >"Dr. Strangelove" which received critical acclaim had some
> >"unblievable characters".
>
> Personally I find Dr.Strangelove to be an incredible bore,
That doesn't suprise me. For many people weaned on special effects
and how LOUD subwoofers can roar, I would expect as much.
thanks in
> part to the casts' insistance to play "I'm the stupidest character"
> one-upsmanship, and also thanks in part to the fact that it drags, has no
> comic timing and no jokes. But I digress. At least Strangelove is a comedy,
> which is built in defense. EWS is not. A serious movie should have serious
> characters. And don't compare painting to movie making; they are totally
> different.
Why not? Art is about perception, and how one sees and interpret a
particular subject, whether music, books, film, painting. The
genre may be different, but the effect is nevertheless the same.
Artists are artists.
> Fellini had "unbelievable characters".
> >"Forest Gump" was an outstanding movie despite the "unbelievable
> >characters".
>
> >If you demand character believability, and believable situations
> >you're going to have some serious problems come the 21st century.
>
> I guess I won't see very many movies then...is it a bad thing to wich
> for quality movies?
Heah! Heah! Absolutely not sir! That's why I watched EWS.
> Or I could watch good movies if someone made some.
Kubrick just did. And you didn't like it.
> But if you liked
> >those very believable characters in "The Haunting" perhaps all is
> >not lost for you. The world is full of mediocrity, dullness,
> >lack of imagination, and woefully lacking in artistry.
>
> You forgot to mention poor characterization.
And poor characterization.
As for "The Haunting," I
> didn't say I liked it OR that it was believable. Learn to read.
I'm working on my A-B-Cs's now. Please be patient.
I just said I
> would rather watch a bad non-serious short movie than a bad serious long
> movie.
And I would rather not watch ANY bad movies of any length. Lets see
you would "rather watch a bad non-serious short movie than a bad
serious long movie". But what about a bad non serious short
movie compared to a bad serious SHORT movie?
James Margaris
[clip]
First off, fuck you, right off the bat. I can't stand it when pompous
morons just stick words in my mouth or make assumptions like "you are of the
MTV generation so you have no attention span." (We will get to the
objectionable part in a minute.)
[clip]
>Also, it depends on the type of
>> movie...in a spoof goofball comedy I can deal with un-believable characters,
>> although personally I don't really go for goofball comedy. You also can't
>> confuse believability of motivation and action with the actual character. For
>> example, in Terminator the existence of the terminator is fiction but the
>> terminators and the people who interact with them behave in a way that is
>> fairly convincing *if* you allow for the fact that terminators exist in the
>> first place.
>
>And I allowed for the "fact" the characters existed in a surreal world
>in EWS.
A surreal world where a doctor interprets a wife's dream (who doesn't
have sex dreams?) as some sort of ultimate betrayal, a world full of 1
dimensional stereotypes (first name Randy, last name Teen), and many just
plain dopey elements, like the orgy rotating houses...gee, that's a brilliant
idea!
[clip]
>> an unbelievable character who has no motivation or reason other than the
>> director manipulating them for his own reasons.
>
>All true artists manipulate a subject for their own reasons. That is
>what they do. I thought Kubrick was quite serious. Of course "serious"
>can be probematical. Would you have felt better if they had 9-5 jobs
>with 2.5 kids, and a dog living in the suburbs and barbecuing?
>Some people carry on quite a dull existence, and think it is the
>only existence. And of course they enjoy the normalcy of their
>lives, thank you very much. But there is a dark side to some people's
>lives. Kubrick explored this. This world truly exists. The naive will
>refuse to acknowledge that such lifestyles exist; they have their eyes
>wide shut. They will dismiss the subject as "not serious".
This is SOOO pretentious. You even manage to use the films title in
defense...how clever. "Eyes Wide Shut," what a fucking AMAZING bit of irony.
The world where you just can't have sex if you a doctor that looks like Tom
Cruise no matter how hard you try does not exist.
As for maniulating their subject for ther own reasons, that is
completly wrong. "Artists" who do that are heavy handed and put characters and
story behind the "theme" they want to hammer in. Ask a good writer and they
will tell you that the characters manipulate them, not the other way around.
That is what happens when you create real characters, something Kubrick
usually does his best to avoid.
[clip]
>> Personally I find Dr.Strangelove to be an incredible bore,
>
>That doesn't suprise me. For many people weaned on special effects
>and how LOUD subwoofers can roar, I would expect as much.
Once again, fuck you. What is your problem? Did I say I wanted special
effects? Why do you just assume from thin air that anyone who criticizes
Kubrick simply *CANNOT* have valid points and must be some sort of mental
case? Did you even read what I wrote about it? It had nothing to do with
special effects...can you read? How old are you?
I can't take any Kubrick apologist seriously when their defense to
good arguments is that the MTV generation is too stupid to understand,
refusing to debate at any sort of intellectual level. I could give a scene by
scene analysis of Strangelove if I had time, but in brief:
Strangelove, the main army guy, and the guy who orders the attack and
kills himself each are way over the top to the point of annoyance but just not
funny; they have poor delivery and poor timing.
Certain scenes simply are way too long and once again have no humor
value. The president talking on the phone with Moscow, for example. I expect
this type of conversation in a Woddy Allen movie or ep of Seinfeld, but in the
case it is handled so poorly that it is totally flat. The two guys talking
about flourine...waay too long and not funnny at all.
Like almost all Kubrick too heavy handed, clumsy and obvious. When the
army is storming in to get the codes Kubrick makes mulitple lingering shots of
the billboard that says "Peace is our business." (Or something like that) How
clever! Oh, the irony! It says "Peace is our business" as the are FIGHTING.
Wow. Can't you see the incredible subtle irony in that? That's almost as
brilliant as "Eyes Wide Shut!" And in case you don't get it the first time, he
hits you over the head with the image so you can see just how clever and
ironic he is. How about "You can't fight, this is the war room." Hah hah. This
type of irony is so obvious it's almost insulting, not clever or nuanced at
all.
How about the shot where the machine gunners are shooting at a column
of troops? They shoot for 5 seconds, we see some troops. They shoot for 5 more
seconds, we see more troops. More shooting. Look, even more troops. How
exciting. I'm glad we just watched the same scene 6 times in a row! Talk about
pacing. I was really hoping for the even more exciting 7th exact same shot of
them shooting at *even more* troops. How dissapointing.
I could certainly go on and on. Does it sound like I'm complaining
about special effects? And let the record show that there are plenty of older
movies I like, so that theory has no legs, not that it ever did.
>thanks in
>> part to the casts' insistance to play "I'm the stupidest character"
>> one-upsmanship, and also thanks in part to the fact that it drags, has no
>> comic timing and no jokes. But I digress. At least Strangelove is a comedy,
>> which is built in defense. EWS is not. A serious movie should have serious
>> characters. And don't compare painting to movie making; they are totally
>> different.
>
>Why not? Art is about perception, and how one sees and interpret a
>particular subject, whether music, books, film, painting. The
>genre may be different, but the effect is nevertheless the same.
>Artists are artists.
Give me a break. Writing is totally different from drawing or
scuplture which is totally different from directing. Do good artists make good
writers? Do they use similar techniques or approach things in the same way. I
could say that humans are the same as asses because they both have heads and
feet and breathe, right? Just because they are about the same basic thing
doesn't mean you can compare them.
>> >If you demand character believability, and believable situations
>> >you're going to have some serious problems come the 21st century.
>>
>> I guess I won't see very many movies then...is it a bad thing to wich
>> for quality movies?
>
> Heah! Heah! Absolutely not sir! That's why I watched EWS.
Ouch! Stunning retort sir!
>
>> Or I could watch good movies if someone made some.
>
> Kubrick just did. And you didn't like it.
That reading problem once again. I said good.
All you can come up with is the totally typical Kubrick defense, no
matter what the attack is:
You are too dumb to understand, only the intellectual elite are clever
enough to act like sheep and mindlessly bleat in unison that Kubrick is a
master film-maker.
My attacks, and in general the ones on this newsgroup, have nothing to
do with action, sex, special effects or whatever. They are basic questions of
plot and characters, yet the response is still "not enough action, huh?" You
just imagine what your opponents are saying instead of actually reading, no
doubt because your precious ego would be hurt if you had to admit that people
had valid complaints.
You know, you *can* acknowlege the complaints and still like the
movie. Personally I enjoyed watching Mortal Kombat (the first one), because it
did a good job for the type of movie it was. Of course it was not a "quality"
film and there are a million complaints to be made against it, but *I* still
like it. Similarly, you can "just like* EWS, just don't claim it is the
masterpiece it isn't. You can still like a movie with problems.
James M
Stephen Roberts
James Margaris wrote:
>
> Strangelove, the main army guy, and the guy who orders the attack and
> kills himself each are way over the top to the point of annoyance but just not
> funny; they have poor delivery and poor timing.
>
> Certain scenes simply are way too long and once again have no humor
> value. The president talking on the phone with Moscow, for example. I expect
> this type of conversation in a Woddy Allen movie or ep of Seinfeld, but in the
> case it is handled so poorly that it is totally flat. The two guys talking
> about flourine...waay too long and not funnny at all.
You just flushed your credibility down the toilet. Say no more.
James Margaris
>
>
>James Margaris wrote:
>
>>
>> Strangelove, the main army guy, and the guy who orders the attack and
>> kills himself each are way over the top to the point of annoyance but just
> not
>> funny; they have poor delivery and poor timing.
>>
>> Certain scenes simply are way too long and once again have no humor
>> value. The president talking on the phone with Moscow, for example. I expect
>> this type of conversation in a Woddy Allen movie or ep of Seinfeld, but in
> the
>> case it is handled so poorly that it is totally flat. The two guys talking
>> about flourine...waay too long and not funnny at all.
>
Wow, another brilliant response from the Kubrick apologists. Would you
care to point out how I am so utterly incorrect, rather than your "don't go
there?" I love the fact that Kubrick films are supposedly for the
"intelligent" crowd but the whole lot can't come up with anything intelligent
to say about them. Because I think a "classic" was boring I have no
credibility now? Care to point out how I was incorrect, how the "Peace is our
business" shot is not heavy handed, how the acting is not too hammy, how the
repeated shot of the two machinegunners is not pointlessly long?
The defense of Kubrick on this group, with a few exceptions, is
actually less intelligent than defense of WWW by the few that try that. For
all the complaining about the "dumbing down" of audiences, can they be smart
enough to understand our god Kubrick?, only the intellectual elite can
appreciate it, blah blah blah, the defense given by the self-titled
intelligencia is laughable at best. Graduate from middle school and then come
back.
James M
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>>>Strangelove, the main army guy, and the guy who orders the attack and
>>> kills himself each are way over the top to the point of annoyance but
just
>> not funny; they have poor delivery and poor timing.
>>>Certain scenes simply are way too long and once again have no humor
>>> value. The president talking on the phone with Moscow, for example. I
expect
>>> this type of conversation in a Woddy Allen movie or ep of Seinfeld, but
in
>> the case it is handled so poorly that it is totally flat. The two guys
talking
>>> about flourine...waay too long and not funnny at all.
>>You just flushed your credibility down the toilet. Say no more.
>Wow, another brilliant response from the Kubrick apologists. Would you
>care to point out how I am so utterly incorrect, rather than your "don't go
>there?" I love the fact that Kubrick films are supposedly for the
>"intelligent" crowd but the whole lot can't come up with anything
intelligent
>to say about them. Because I think a "classic" was boring I have no
>credibility now? Care to point out how I was incorrect, how the "Peace is
our
>business" shot is not heavy handed, how the acting is not too hammy, how
the
>repeated shot of the two machinegunners is not pointlessly long?
> The defense of Kubrick on this group, with a few exceptions, is
>actually less intelligent than defense of WWW by the few that try that. For
>all the complaining about the "dumbing down" of audiences, can they be
smart
>enough to understand our god Kubrick?, only the intellectual elite can
>appreciate it, blah blah blah, the defense given by the self-titled
>intelligencia is laughable at best. Graduate from middle school and then
come
>back.
>>>>
It's obvious that you've consumed w-a-y too much fluoridated water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Del Stanley
>
>First off, fuck you, right off the bat.
A bed would probably be more comfy.
I can't stand it when pompous
> morons just stick words in my mouth
Look again inside your mouth. It ain't words. Watch you been
suckin on, I hope you don't gag! There is defintely something
shoved in your mouth.
or make assumptions like "you are of the
> MTV generation so you have no attention span."
This is a point YOU have just made, and proved it to yourself.
What a poor insecure creature you must be. After your preamble,
it was pointless in reading any further. I don't know what you had
to say, probably a lot more mindless chat and banter. You probably
should have have made your first paragraph your last, and perhaps
you would have been heard. Since you just confirmed that you
are a creep, I will know not to read ANY thing posted by you.
James Margaris
The only difference between my "fuck you" and yours is that yours was
slightly less explicit. You *still* have nothing to say.
[clip]
>or make assumptions like "you are of the
>> MTV generation so you have no attention span."
>
>This is a point YOU have just made, and proved it to yourself.
>What a poor insecure creature you must be. After your preamble,
>it was pointless in reading any further.
Translation: "I am too stupid to respond to your arguments, so I will
pretend I did not read them." I did not prove anything to myself. The rest of
my argument, which you claim you did not read, was well thought out and better
than anything you have produced on this topic.
If my swearing offended you, oh...I'm sorry. Let's look at it this
way: You put words in my mouth, accused and stereotyped me for no reason, with
NO justification at all. You conventiently lumped me with the masses who think
special effects are what makes a movie, even though *nothing* I have posted in
this thread or about EWS would lead anyone to think that. That, my friend, is
much more of an insult than a general "fuck you." Instead of paying any
attention to what I've said and trying to rebutt logically you fall back on
"you *must* be an idiot to disagree, you must be uninformed, dense, raised on
MTV, addicted to special FX and subwoofers..."
Do you realize how idiotic that is? And you *STILL* have nothing to
say actually on the point. Like every arrogant newsgroup self-styled
intellectual you do everything to make yourself look clever *except* actually
respond to any issues put forth. I may have a quick temper but I also have
something to say other than catch-phrases, knee-jerks and pat responses.
I don't know what you had
>to say, probably a lot more mindless chat and banter. You probably
>should have have made your first paragraph your last, and perhaps
>you would have been heard. Since you just confirmed that you
>are a creep, I will know not to read ANY thing posted by you.
Ha ha, of course you will. *I* am the creep? Though my language was
worse your attitude is what got the ball rolling.
And of course, my chat and banter was so mindless that you couldn't
defend against a single point.
James M
Rich
pretentious on the whole....pathetic pacing, bad acting, ridiculous
scenes..
this is nicole kidman's all-time WORST performance. nuanced? HA!! at
times, i wanted to scream at her to hurry up and finish her thought. and
oh yeah, she's against gratuitous sex, right? so why does she disrobe in
the opening minutes to show the audience her ass? for some cultural
reason??
and what about cruise in the scene near the end of the movie where he has
his hand on his face/chin for 5 minutes? what the hell was that?
sexy? no....i don't think so. anyone who has ever seen 3 minutes of a
soft porn movie has seen more, and hotter, sex.
there is NOTHING in EWS to be learned, so there is NOTHING to be gained
by seeing it. so married people have sexual fantasies....so what else is
new? pretentious, pathetic filmmaking by kubrick.
by the way, this is a TYPICAL stanley kubrick movie. S-L-O-W moving and
horribly overrated.
m...@pacbell.net
>
> ack! have american audiences become THAT stupid?
Yes we have. We make Blockbusters out of movies like Waterboy and the
Titanic.
m...@pacbell.net
>
> Ok, you have an e-mail address with the words "dutch society for world
> domination" and you try and laugh at my signature? ROFL!
>
> >
> >
> >nope, not trusting this guy's opinion.
> >
> >see the movie.
> >
HA HA HA HA When I eventually do see it I will report back here with my
opinion.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>"eyes wide shut" IS that bad...and worse.
>pretentious on the whole....pathetic pacing, bad acting, ridiculous
>scenes..
>this is nicole kidman's all-time WORST performance. nuanced? HA!! at
>times, i wanted to scream at her to hurry up and finish her thought. and
>oh yeah, she's against gratuitous sex, right? so why does she disrobe in
>the opening minutes to show the audience her ass? for some cultural
>reason??
>and what about cruise in the scene near the end of the movie where he has
>his hand on his face/chin for 5 minutes? what the hell was that?
>sexy? no....i don't think so. anyone who has ever seen 3 minutes of a
>soft porn movie has seen more, and hotter, sex.
>there is NOTHING in EWS to be learned, so there is NOTHING to be gained
>by seeing it. so married people have sexual fantasies....so what else is
>new? pretentious, pathetic filmmaking by kubrick.
>by the way, this is a TYPICAL stanley kubrick movie. S-L-O-W moving and
>horribly overrated.
>>>>
Excellent! You just passed the "I'm as dumb as a bowl of jell-o" test.
Thank you very much!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
James Margaris
>Rich wrote in message <379FFD01...@dp.net>...
>
>
>Excellent! You just passed the "I'm as dumb as a bowl of jell-o" test.
>
>Thank you very much!
Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with people on this group? Is the
average age here 12? This guy wrote criticisms that are entirely valid, and
you just blatantly insult him for it? DIdn't you think there were parts of the
movie that were slow? Do you really beleive there is a lot ot be learned from
EWS? Do you not agree with the assessment the most Kubrick films are slow,
heavy handed and obvious?
Care to tell him *WHY* he is as dumb as jello? He wasn't saying
anything personal either about you or about Kubrick...you might thinkg that if
people are going to discuss a film they would be allowed to pan it, as long as
they can back up their opinions, which he did. Isn't that what discussion is
all about.
The people on this group panning EWS have consistently given good
backing to their arguments, whereas the kubrick ass kissers have resorted to
name calling and insult - anything but actually talk about the film. THey seem
to have some strange notion that Kubrick is GOD and can do no wrong, so anyone
who disagrees, no matter how well thought out their opinion is, just HAS to be
wrong.
I would like to see you defend against his points but you are no doubt
far too stupid to produce anything above a one sentence "clever" response.
James M
Stephen Thompson
>From my perspective, I still can't figure out just how this movie is
>basically any different from any of the fare that comes on Cinemax late at
>night.
Then you must not have watched many late-night Cinemax movies. (Not that I'm
saying you should have.) Whatever valid criticism there may be of Eyes Wide
Shut, this comparison is just silly.
In those movies, the characters generally have a lot of sex with each other,
for the sole purpose of getting the audience hot. Almost nobody has sex in
Eyes Wide Shut, and getting the audience hot obviously wasn't the point.
By the way, since everyone else is voting, no, it isn't "that bad". It's worth
seeing, but it won't be a great tragedy if you miss it. Any highly-anticipated
movie is going to generate a coalition of worshippers and a coalition of
hardcore haters. These people will proceed to call each other stupid with
varying degrees of style, and make a general nuisance of themselves. It's
inevitable, and it means nothing. Both groups are really pretty useless when
it comes to making your film-going decisions.
Paul Richardson
time
> when the art of filmmaking takes second place to the consumption of
filmmaking.
Yes indeed. Of course, that period of time has gone on for over 100 years
now, so this is true of all of Kubrick's films.