Re: eyes wide shut
JediMars@aol.com
Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 7/17/99 4:38:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, BabeVal@aol.com
writes:
<< I saw it and thought it was another Kubrick masterpiece. I was amazed at
how great Cruise and Kidman were. I usually don't care for either of them,
but they developed their characters so well in this film. Several scenes
were
chilling. Scenes that would normally seem erotic, were terrifying. One
person
I went with, however, fell asleep. And after the movie I heard two women in
the restroom saying what a "dud" it was. They said they expected the pace to
pick up after the first hour (it's 2hrs 40min). It's pacing was only
slightly
faster than 2001. I recommend seeing this film.
~Valerie >>
i really liked the movie.. i'll probably be seeing it again sometime this
week..
i didn't think the pace was so slow....
actually... maybe the pace was a little slow.. but i didn't think the movie
was dragging... i didn't realize how long the movie was until i got out and
checked the time.. so the length didn't bother me either..
i wasn't happy about cruise being in the movie... i dont' think he fit the
role too well...
i liked the music in it.. i'll probably have the piano notes stuck in my head
for the rest of the week
~marisa