Re: eyes wide shut
Cecilia A. Baader (cbaader@my-Deja.com)
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:40:33 -0700
I don't know that I'd call it another Kubrick masterpiece. Interesting, certainly. But a masterpiece? Certainly not.
Kidman does an amazing job in the movie, but maybe I just hate Tom Cruise. I just don't buy him as the angst-ridden man that he portrays in the movie. She, though, she manages to convey all that mystery is in even a safe, married woman. If she doesn't get beaucoup awards for this one, I'll be surprised.
Visually, it's stunning. (And I'm not talking about all the nudity that's in it, either.) There are these surreal, masked scenes that you can't tear your eyes away from.
But it's the trap that every great director gets into. He builds and builds upon things that aren't strictly necessary to the plot, and you end up with a movie that is forty minutes longer than need be.
Don't get me wrong, though. I didn't dislike it. But I didn't love it either. It won't disappoint, unless you are looking for a masterpiece.
Which I guess is what I was doing.
Regards,
Cecilia.
---
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:36:07 BabeVal wrote:
> 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
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.