I think Gene would have liked it. Probably would have had a few issues with it but Tom and Nicole were excellent. The cinematography was mesmerizing. One of the reviewers here was exactly right. This movie is much more appreciated on the second and third viewings.
01. Day Of The Fight (1951) short 02. Flying Padre (1951) short 03. The Seafarers (1953) short 04. Fear And Desire (1953) 05. Killer's Kiss (1955) 06. The Killing (1956) 07. Paths Of Glory (1957) 08. Spartacus (1960) 09. Lolita (1962) 10. Dr. Strangelove (1964) 11. 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) 12. A Clockwork Orange (1971) 13. Barry Lyndon (1975) 14. The Shining (1980) 15. Full Metal Jacket (1987) 16. Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
@@kevinkeels6845 James Cameron has the best film resume of all time, never made a flop, and virtually every film he’s made is a landmark in cinema. Cameron > Kubrick any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
This is wonderful to watch now so many years later. We all needed time to let that movie age and grow. I remember when it first came out, no one liked it and the fame of Tom and Nicole over shadowed it. I love this movie.
I had the impression here that Ebert and the production company were auditioning a replacement for poor Gene Siskel. Do you think these other 4 wouldn't be thinking that? "Oh boy, if I get a job with Roger Ebert, I'm set for life! This is my big chance!" My favorite, by the way, is "A Clockwork Orange."
These guys are not real movie critics...why are they wearing suits and not t-shirts with superhero logos? Also, no Funko pops, no Hot Toys, no Marvel props displayed randomly, no Star Wars posters in the background 🤔🤔🤔 #cinemaisdead
There are practically no more real critics worth their salt. My University offered a Masters in criticism. Most people hired these days are 17 year old kids with no knowledge whatsoever.
cant name my favorite. he made his movies his way yes but spartacus is a film he directed, in his own words, for someone else. while not a true kubrick movie, it is a great achievement. watch the docu about the failure to complete hollywoods first epic film "i claudius". i think he made spartacus as a kind of favor for hollywood and to prove that, because he was such a talented leader, a seemingly jinxed project that risked falling into the footsteps of failure managed to instead sprout wings.
His independent freedom would have meant zero, if there wasn’t commercial value in his name. In the end, that’s what matters the most, to get a film any traction. You still have to be able to make the studio money whether through the prestige route, or commercial.
Quite so. Oliver Stone always underlined the emphatically Money-Driven side of Hollywood, notably in his fascinating Q & A at the Oxford Union in 2016 (on You Tube, 61 mins)
It's true, for all of his reputation and the high art of his films - the vast majority made money for the studios. Even "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining", which are commonly thought of as "disappointments", theatrically, really weren't. Even "Barry Lyndon" made 3 times its budget, theatrically. Same for "The Shining" - both films were considered "flops", but only because they didn't hit what they were EXPECTED to hit - but they still made money for the studios. In fact, the only film that didn't do well at the box office was "Paths of Glory" and even that earned back its budget, plus some. So for all of his reputation as a time-consuming filmmaker - his budgets never got out of control and he always made them money, even if it wasn't "Star Wars"-level money. He knew how to entertain an audience while making masterpieces for adults at the same time. That's extremely rare. He never made anything that was a "blockbuster" but when you look at the *budgets* he had, they were often low - and his box office, 9 times out of 10, was usually about 3 times his budget. He was able to keep doing what he did because he never asked the studio for too much money and they always knew they'd get it back.
Eyes Wide Shut us one of Kubrick's best movies . I bought the unrated version of the movie on DVD and couldn't believe why it originally got the NC-17 rating . As it was pointed out in the documentary , This Film Is Not Yet Rated , the unrated version has some pelvic thrusting from the male performers in the secret sex meeting . It was literally about maybe 5 seconds of film footage .
@@threeminuteshateI had an obsession with the late 90s, early 2000s this past winter. WWF Raw is War, woodstock 99, Jack-as$... Something about that era had me thinking about it for weeks straight, like intrusive thoughts. I was only 9 years old in 1999 but it just seemed like a simpler time
My favorite part of EWS is the scene when he argues with his wife. He does a WTF-is-wrong-with-you so well it just cracks me up. I'd love to see him haranguing people on set when he makes movies. I wonder if he was channeling his impatience with Stanley in his performance. Hmmm..
I've wondered for years why Kubrick paired Shelley Duvall with Jack Nicholson that is, why such an actress playing a dull character against a dynamic actor playing a complicated character. Made me think about Kier Dullea's dull astronaut vs the star of 2001, HAL. It wasn't until I saw Eyes Wide Shut that I was certain something was going on. But why did Kubrick do that? Why did he purposely use low energy actors (one could say second rate) juxtaposed with a talented actor?
At what point did the mask disappear? Tom takes it off, and is holding on to it. So how did those creeps get a hold of it? How did it end up in their hands?
8:46 - "...to a secret, private orgy..." I've always found it strange that critics called it an "orgy." It sure doesn't look as if anyone is having fun. That isn't an orgy; it's a ritual, and something seems to have drawn the good doctor into it. From the moment he leaves his apartment, the laws of probability go crazy on his ass. Every encounter he has is sexually-charged. There's no less a supernatural element to Eyes Wide Shut than there is to The Shining.
What do you think it wouldve been like if Kubrick got to work with Leonardo DiCaprio? I think Kubrick wouldve had very little patience with Leo's more bratty personality tropes. But I think the end result wouldve been really interesting. I mean, I never thought he would work with Tom Cruise and look how that turned out
I never saw this movie and after hearing from these critics how Tom Cruise (is that his real name?) was a shallow participant, It makes me speculate that Scientology David Miskovich had a role whose power exceeded Kubrick's. And I ran across this: The brilliant director Stanley Kubrick died of a heart attack on 9 March 1999 at his English estate near Hertfordshire, according to the official version. Kubrick's death is still a mystery plaguing major European tabloids. The director died four days after the end of the editing period of his latest and most enigmatic film Eyes Wide Shut, starring then-weds Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film follows the sexually charged adventures of Dr. Bill Harford, who is shocked when his wife, Alice, reveals that she had contemplated having an affair a year earlier. It was Kidman in July 2002's interview with the American newspaper National Enquirer who transparently hinted that Kubrick passed away not by choice. According to the actress, the director called her two hours before the official time of his sudden death. He asked her not to come to Hertfordshire where, as he put it, "we will all be poisoned so fast that we do not have time to even sneeze." After Kidman's revelations in the European press, there was speculation that Kubrick could have been poisoned by the secret societies, which include members of the Western economic, political and cultural elite. Or the Scientologists? Cruise filed for divorce from Kidman in 2001 at the urging or command of the society. Kidman was pregnant at the time and miscarried at the news In Eyes Wide Shut, the centerpiece of the film is a colossal ritual at a fashionable estate near New York City. Kubrick wanted to show that the secret societies rule the Western world today. National Association of Theater Owners in the US withheld permission to distribute the picture for almost four months. Since Kubrick was no longer alive, the orgy scene was edited out. The public was fooled by information that the argument was over the openness of the erotic scenes. So what do we think about that?
I e seen both versions and the difference can be so stupidly subtle y your point of view . It was just a couple shots that added some standing people to obstruct natural thrusting of the men in the simulated sex scenes . I think the bad reviews were propaganda to protect the evil corporate rulers and their evil wrongdoing . I actually love the movie and NOT because of the sexual content . I love watching his camera work .
Completely untrue clap trap. I don’t know where you got that stuff from but the version Kubrick sent to the studio was the version your seeing now. There was no editing.
@@michaelsims1160 in the documentary This Film is Not Rated , they showed 2 different clips of the orgy scene . One clip shows the pelvic thrusting from a male to the female . In the "edited" clip they added some people standing in front of the two "lovers" to obscure the thrusting . So , there was SOME editing .
What is it with you people? You are CONSTANTLY looking for conspiracy theories. The vast majority of the time, they don't exist. Are you a troll? Just bored?
Dann Gire comes off as so overly-rehearsed and very stiff. This was a great episode. Even though I disagreed with him often, I really miss Siskel's perspective on this movie.
I need to get this on DVD 📀, the film that is. Honourable mention to Sydney Pollack who is riveting in the movie. The only weakness is Nicole Kidman who isn’t up to scratch for a film of this calibre
I've seen EWS three or four times, and my feeling is that if anyone but Kubrick directed it, it would be a 2.5 stars out of 4 movie. Their adoration for Kubrick deeply clouds their appreciation for this movie.
I love Kubrick films, but EWS is unwatchable, I just don't get it. The only good part is the scenes with LeeLee Sobieski because it has Kubrick's wicked sense of humor. Of course the cinematography is gorgeous.
All these guys are talking about making the film, not what you saw in the theatre. You saw the final result. They are talking about the influences of why this film was made. Stretch and yaaaaawwwwn.
Some films are more about the payoff, the conclusion, and others are more about the journey. EWS is definitely the latter IMO. The conclusion is quite abrupt and seemingly frivolous, but I think it makes sense given what came before. The events/journey of the Harford character are more interesting and powerful than any conclusion could be, also IMO.
You need to look at it from the right angle. Then it makes sense. Not everything you see happened in the real world. Most Kubrick movies are panned the first 5 years because they don’t follow a standard narrative. Then they get re evaluated over the next decade until people realize what they were watching was actually a masterpiece. Kubrick responded to criticism of his movies by saying “I spend a decade thinking about these things and making them. The critics and audiences spend 2 hrs watching it. Is it a real surprise they miss the point”. Kubrick movies definitely need and deserve more then one viewing.
When a man puts a piece of celluloid and his ego as a master director above the mental health and safety of the actors that make his films succeed, as he did with Shelley Duvall, I have ZERO respect or admiration for the man or his products.
