Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

red rocket · Oct 7, 2006, 08:18 AM

Cruise and Kidman Ruined 'Eyes Wide Shut', Kubrick Told Ermey

Stanley Kubrick thought his last movie Eyes Wide Shut was a "piece of s**t" that was ruined by interference from its stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, according to actor R. Lee Ermey. Ermey starred in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and remained in contact with the legendary film-maker up until his death in 1999. When the pair spoke shortly after Kubrick had completed work on Eyes Wide Shut, Ermey recalls the legendary director expressing his disappointment with the movie. He says, "Stanley called me about two weeks before he died, as a matter of fact. We had a long conversation about Eyes Wide Shut. He told me it was a piece of s**t and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics were going to have him for lunch. He said Cruise and Kidman had their way with him - exactly the words he used. He was kind of a shy little timid guy. He wasn't real forceful. That's why he didn't appreciate working with big, high-powered actors. They would have their way with him, he would lose control, and his movie would turn to s**t." Kubrick died in Hertfordshire, England of natural causes in March 1999.

sauce

What do you think?

Personally, I really tried to like the film, but couldn't. Especially the ending was frustrating. I remember sitting there, staring at the screen, thinking, "What the f*ck, that's it?"

It's not even that Cruise and Kidman are so awful in it, it's that the film fails on both the practical and aesthetic level. Maybe that's what killed Kubrick: frustration.

Nexus5 · Oct 7, 2006, 08:24 AM

I also _tried_ to like the movie, I saw it 2 times - but it did not work for me. I can not exactly say why - I just dont like the mood in the movie. Its kind of deconstructive.

nexus5.

TETENAL · Oct 7, 2006, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by red rocket

Stanley Kubrick thought his last movie Eyes Wide Shut was a "piece of s**t"

What do you think?

I agree with him.

marden · 08:46 AM

I felt it was an old man (Kubrick) trying too late to get into the worlds of kinky sex and dark conspiracy. And his attempt to meld those worlds was unconvincing and inconsequential. From his point of view using his standards of morality and inexperience as the norm, it contributed to making this a totally unappetizing blend on most levels. There's nothing wrong with an author (auteur?) exploring a subject with his audience. There's nothing wrong with a director reporting to an audience his tales from new worlds he'd already discovered. My criticism is with Kubrick making this film his last before he'd had a chance to really make sense of the subject and come to grips with these worlds on a personal level. It's like he knew he had a good idea for a film but it wasn't allowed to sit long enough in his brain for him to really understand it before having to commence shooting. He likely knew his days weren't long on this earth and wanted one last fling. He died with his boots on. And Tom & Nicole were able to have the honor of working with the legend.

That's about all I can say for it.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 08:38 AM

While I think Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman may not have added to the film, I think the film in general wasn't good. Even if they had done an all star performance, I still don't think it would have been much better.

I put Eyes Wide Shut more on par with Barry Lyndon. It doesn't even approach 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, etc. 2001 and Dr. Strangelove changed film (if only for a brief moment), and I feel that is the definition of a great film. Eyes Wide Shut didn't change anything.

I also, very much, liked Full Metal Jacket [although many critics disagree]. IMHO, it could have been two movies it was so good [the first movie being about boot camp, the second about being in the field]. There are so many parts of that move that are iconic.

Cody Dawg · Oct 7, 2006, 08:41 AM

Everything about it was horrible.

Cruise and Kidman had zero chemistry, to begin with. It was a terrible idea to cast them together.

Then the movie itself was just terrible.

I only wish I'd kept my eyes shut.

rjenkinson · Oct 7, 2006, 08:43 AM

sauce?

-r.

PB2K · Oct 7, 2006, 09:47 AM

Eyes Wide Shut isn't a movie that you will appreciate more after watching it a few times. It's no landmark but not a bad movie either. It's not because of Cruise and Kidman. I do remember some critics rave about the fact that this couple had shown they could do a serious movie as well. Anyone remember the English Patient, it received numerous Academy awards wen it was released..why.

finboy · Oct 7, 2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

While I think Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman may not have added to the film, I think the film in general wasn't good. Even if they had done an all star performance, I still don't think it would have been much better.
.

It's probably that they exercised too much influence on the editing, or marketing, or something. Their performances may not have been what screwed it up.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by PB2K

Eyes Wide Shut isn't a movie that you will appreciate more after watching it a few times. It's no landmark but not a bad movie either. It's not because of Cruise and Kidman. I do remember some critics rave about the fact that this couple had shown they could do a serious movie as well. Anyone remember the English Patient, it received numerous Academy awards wen it was released..why.

I've seen it over 5 times (it's in my DVD collection and also was on HBO [so you can't miss it ]).

IMHO, it didn't get any better with multiple viewings.

I agree about the English Patient... it wasn't good, but it was better than Eyes Wide Shut IMHO.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by finboy

It's probably that they exercised too much influence on the editing, or marketing, or something. Their performances may not have been what screwed it up.

Interesting point. They may have influenced the actual dialog as well.

Originally Posted by From the Article

"[Kubrick] said Cruise and Kidman had their way with him - exactly the words he used. He was kind of a shy little timid guy. He wasn't real forceful. That's why he didn't appreciate working with big, high-powered actors. They would have their way with him, he would lose control, and his movie would turn to s**t."

It sounds like Cruise and Kidman simply wouldn't do what he was asking of them, and he didn't have the strength to say "no" or "that doesn't conform to my vision."

That being said, you should blame the baker for bad bread... meaning if he didn't have the strength to put them in their place, he should have gotten rid of them.

IMHO, it's very unfortunate that his last film was of such a low quality.

marden · Oct 7, 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I've seen it over 5 times (it's in my DVD collection and also was on HBO [so you can't miss it ]).

IMHO, it didn't get any better with multiple viewings.

I agree about the English Patient... it wasn't good, but it was better than Eyes Wide Shut IMHO.

I liked the feel of the English Patient. It was slow and somewhat lugubrious, but it knew what it was doing and where it was going and what it was about in addition to it being beautiful film making.

A literal change of pace and enjoyably so once you commit to having the experience.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by marden

I liked the feel of the English Patient. It was slow and somewhat lugubrious, but it knew what it was doing and where it was going and what it was about in addition to it being beautiful film making.

A literal change of pace and enjoyably so once you commit to having the experience.

Perhaps I didn't like it due to the hype around it. It has some moments, but from what everyone was saying about it, it redefined film, and I just didn't see it.

marden · Oct 7, 2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Perhaps I didn't like it due to the hype around it. It has some moments, but from what everyone was saying about it, it redefined film, and I just didn't see it.

I see.

JoshuaZ · Oct 7, 2006, 10:20 AM

I liked how the film's score. I wonder how much they paid a guy to randomly hit keys on a piano.

Dakar · Oct 7, 2006, 02:27 PM

Yeah, I went to see it in the theater with my friend who was a big Kubrick fan. When we were done he asked me what I thought.

"Not great."

freudling · Oct 7, 2006, 02:40 PM

I disagree with you all. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. Particularly, if you know what is going on in it, which it clearly seems like you all don't, it is profound. I know exactly why it ended the way it did...

Chuckit · Oct 7, 2006, 02:41 PM

I feel sorry for Kubrick. First Tom Cruise ruins his last movie (yeah, it sucks), then Spielberg takes a project they were working on together and does this really pathetic Kubrick drag show.

Peter · Oct 7, 2006, 02:43 PM

Meh, wasn't a fan of the film. Wasn't because of Cruise though.

kcmac · Oct 7, 2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

I disagree with you all. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. Particularly, if you know what is going on in it, which it clearly seems like you all don't, it is profound. I know exactly why it ended the way it did...

Sounds like the attitude George Bush should be using. I am the greatest...if only you understood me...

Hash · Oct 7, 2006, 03:13 PM

This is a very weird movie. First, I think Cruise and Kidman really never had any kind of synergy, not in real life, not in the movie. I think it was obvious and their break was a result of the movie as well.

Secondly, the conspiracy which could exist in a very closed society and in some its sections in 1920s Austria, would be very difficult to keep in a modern world with all its paparazzis, and the hundreds of people involved, from many members, drivers, musicians to prostitutes and without knowledge of police, mafia and so on. Heck, i think it was impossible even in Austria at that time. Remember, that with modern communication and surveillance technology, keeping those large orgies unnoticed would be very difficult. Moreover, the death penalties for NDA breaking would be enforced by using professional killers and probably a lot of private detectives and so on. This would cost such money, that even wealthy people will doubt if a doubtful privilege of being a member of stupid secret group which exists ONLY for mass sleeping with prostitutes in masks would outweigh the huge costs, not only financial, but of any other kind, if the membership would be leaked to public, and moreover, would require some kind of omerta. Remember, these wealthy people can enjoy company of beautiful women without death threats, NDA, weird masks, hired killers and probable loss of reputation forever (even not mentioning probable criminal charges) so what would force them to join the stupid society? I mean what are the benefits of membership? It is not religion, business or politics. thats why the basic idea seems plain unnatural.

Thirdly, the end also seems unnatural, but I cannot express it or formulate why, its just strange ending. The whole society shown in the movies is very ill. Yet, if it is so ill, why the secrecy about the club and orgies? Compared to what shown to be normal life, the clubs even look decent.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

I disagree with you all. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. Particularly, if you know what is going on in it, which it clearly seems like you all don't, it is profound. I know exactly why it ended the way it did...

The "You would love it if you understood it" card is usually used to mask a poor quality film. I think the cinematography was fantastic, but it just wasn't great in my opinion.

Hash · Oct 7, 2006, 03:20 PM

I would like to understand and love it, could you give us details which we did not understand, freudling?

marden · Oct 7, 2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by kcmac

Sounds like the attitude George Bush should be using. I am the greatest...if only you understood me...

Care to say that in the P/L?

marden · Oct 7, 2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

I disagree with you all. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. Particularly, if you know what is going on in it, which it clearly seems like you all don't, it is profound. I know exactly why it ended the way it did...

I'm willing to reconsider my estimation of it. Would you care to explain it for us or is there a link to a review which represents or approximates your interpretation and appreciation of the film?

Peter · Oct 7, 2006, 03:44 PM

Eyes Wide Shut
didnt't get terrible reviews.

mitchell_pgh · 11:21 PM

While Eyes Wide Shut didn't get horrible reviews, it simply got the worst reviews of his post 1960 career (what I consider "modern"). Heck, Barry Lyndon is even ranked higher, and I thought that was even worse than Eyes Wide Shut. While I love most of his films, I simply think many people give him some leniency when criticizing his films.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Rotten Tomatoes - 80%
IMDB - 7/10

Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Rotten Tomatoes - 98%
IMDB - 8.2/10

The Shining (1980)
Rotten Tomatoes - 94%
IMDB - 8.4/10

Barry Lyndon (1975)
Rotten Tomatoes - 93%
IMDB - 7.9/10

A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Rotten Tomatoes - 93%
IMDB - 8.4/10

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Rotten Tomatoes - 95%
IMDB - 8.3/10

Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Rotten Tomatoes - 100%
IMDB - 8.7/10

Lolita (1962)
Rotten Tomatoes - 96%
IMDB - 7.6/10

Spartacus (1960)
Rotten Tomatoes - 96%
IMDB - 8.0/10

paul w · Oct 7, 2006, 05:36 PM

Barry Lyndon was way better than Eyes Wide Shut. It may have dragged a bit, but had a story you could follow and fabulous use of music.

kcmac · Oct 7, 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Care to say that in the P/L?

I doubt anyone would understand it in there...

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by paul w

Barry Lyndon was way better than Eyes Wide Shut. It may have dragged a bit, but had a story you could follow and fabulous use of music.

IMHO, it's hard to compare two low quality films.

"do you want to die by a heart attack or a brain aneurism"

vmarks · Oct 7, 2006, 08:52 PM

I understood the movie. I didn't like it atall.

Kubrick got pushed around on the movie a lot.

He originally had Harvey Keitel in it.

Keitel offended Kidman and was thrown off the film, and Kubrick had to re-shoot.

Had he resisted Cruise and Kidman dictating to him, or had he thrown them out and re-shot without them, perhaps he might have had a story closer to what he wanted to tell.

Sydney Pollack was brought in to replace Keitel, and the result, along with other changes at the Cruise-Kidman's request really destroyed what might have been something interesting.

Now, this wasn't necessarily Kubrick's last film.

AI is a film directed by Steven Spielberg. AI is a film that was born from the mind of Stanley Kubrick.

AI was inspired by the short story, Super Toys Last All Summer Long by Brian Aldiss. Kubrick bought the rights to the story and turned it into a feature length story. Kubrick was set to start AI after the release of his final film, Eyes Wide Shut. Shortly before the opening of Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick passed away.

Kubrick was friends with Spielberg and even before his death, approached Spielberg about directing AI with Kubrick producing. While the themes of AI resonate in all of Kubrick's films, Kubrick felt that Spielberg might be able to do a better job with AI's extensive use of special effects and fairie tale motif. Regardless, the film was set to go with or without Speilberg. Kubrick had prepared extensive storyboards and worked on screenplays with Ian Watson.

After Kubrick's death, Spielberg went ahead and made AI. The result is a Spielberg film. He wrote the screenplay and directed the film. Interviews with Jan Harlan, show that this is most definitely a Spielberg film and not a Kubrick film. Harlan explains that Kubrick's version would have been much darker. One example is the character Gigolo Joe. In Spielberg's AI, Joe is a lovable "mecha" or robot. Harlan reveals that Kubrick's Gigolo Joe was much more aggressive and greedy. A much darker character.

( AI )

I would have liked to have seen Kubrick's A.I.

Plumbing Stanley Kubrick is a recollection of Kubrick by Ian Watson, longtime friend and author of Kubrick's AI screenplay.

Dakar · Oct 7, 2006, 08:57 PM

I liked Sydney Pollack in that role. I suspect Keitel would have come off as too blue-collar for it.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 7, 2006, 11:18 PM

Kubrick's A.I. couldn't have been worse than Spielberg's A.I. IMHO.

Hash · Oct 8, 2006, 12:19 AM

I forgot to add, that in modern society there are such closed organizations, which may be correlated to Eyes Wide Shut. Why they do not attract much attention? Because they are closed by nature of their activity and membership: this is mafia, religious organizations (some dark catholic secrets popularly exposed by Da Vinci code), ethnic networks (which also may be religion-based), such as Chinese clans overseas, Jewish networks or almost any other kind of ethnic organization. Membership is closed in such organization by its own nature. But aside from that, you cannot find many organizations which have seemingly open membership, yet punish information disclosure by death like in Kubrik movie. Moreover, the notion is that this whole powerful organization with powerful members exists only to enjoy sex is very strange indeed. The stakes are on way too different levels. For example, assume that this organization had something else on its mind - like career, politics or business networks and relations, or other benefits for its members and unofficial support ties, like most of unofficial clubs do. Why would then these powerful memberes engage in such stupid things like mass orgies and BRING non-members to it? You see the organization looks nothing more than an undercover whorehouse and in addition has death threats to keep eyes, well, shut wide. This is where the story begins to become fake, and once it does, there is not really any sympathy for the doc, who attends such parties and well, breaks his NDA promise, nor to anyone else, and in addition, any thrill about such fantastic notions. Maybe I am wrong, cause i did not read the original story, just watched the film (twice) and while I did like it, i don't think its very good movie and story itself is more or less unconvincing.

red rocket · Oct 8, 2006, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by rjenkinson

sauce?

Internet slang for source. Been spending too much time on porn forums like 4chan, 7chan, etc.

Cadaver · Oct 8, 2006, 11:08 AM

Bad, bad movie. Only redeeming quality was Nicole Kidman naked.

Dark Helmet · Oct 8, 2006, 12:48 PM

On the other side of the fence I remember the cast was calling him an obsessive old pervert because he had them re-shoot a scene 75 times (normally it is 2-3).

Either way yes the movie did suck mostly because the story was "who cares" and it was a total bore.

On the plus side the movie was stunning visually.

Kevin · Oct 8, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by kcmac

Sounds like the attitude George Bush should be using. I am the greatest...if only you understood me...

Obsessive anti-Bushies always find a way to Bash Bush in the most oddest threads.

Seek help.

freudling · Oct 8, 2006, 02:23 PM

Ok:

Hash: I had an orgie last night. Nobody knew about it, not even you. The only reason anybody knows about now is because I said something. Ok, I didn't have one, but you understand it is not hard to fathom a secret orgie...

The film (my opinion as well as others): I thought it was a great film based on the original Austrian story Traumnovelle (1926). But the film explored more than what the original story was taken to investigate.

It is a snapshot of secret, elite societies in America. It shows us the life of people completely immersed in their own self, mostly selfish. They manage to balance the evil inside them to coexist with those around them in society.

Kidman and the others are sex slaves, an example of a spin off of MKULTRA. At the end, Kidman utters that she needs to fcuk. She has been worked on, just like the other girls. At the beginning, she falls into a sort of trance from the Hungarian gentleman, this showing the power these people have over others. Perhaps she was worked on earlier on in her life....

Cruise is a good choice. He probably doesn't understand totally what is going on and his ignorance and dumb charm make him an excellent candidate for the role.

Then you have him being followed, again, showing the power of the elite over man. Also, the young girl at the costume shope, another sex slave...

On and on. My interpretation.

Hash · Oct 8, 2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

Ok:

Hash: I had an orgie last night. Nobody knew about it, not even you. The only reason anybody knows about now is because I said something. Ok, I didn't have one, but you understand it is not hard to fathom a secret orgie...
...
It is a snapshot of secret, elite societies in America. It shows us the life of people completely immersed in their own self, mostly selfish. They manage to balance the evil inside them to coexist with those around them in society.

Kidman and the others are sex slaves, an example of a spin off of MKULTRA. At the end, Kidman utters that she needs to fcuk. She has been worked on, just like the other girls. At the beginning, she falls into a sort of trance from the Hungarian gentleman, this showing the power these people have over others. Perhaps she was worked on earlier on in her life....

Cruise is a good choice. He probably doesn't understand totally what is going on and his ignorance and dumb charm make him an excellent candidate for the role.

Then you have him being followed, again, showing the power of the elite over man. Also, the young girl at the costume shope, another sex slave...

First, congrats on your orgie. I hope you managed to not to kill anyone and did not follow people who were the witnesses and did not do them any bad things. I also wonder if you are a member of a secret society with hundreds of members which regularly does that sort of things. If not, thats the main difference between real life and one, shown in the movie.

About secret elite socieities: if they manage to coexist peacefully with people around, immersed in themselves, I see nothing bad with that. It would be rather worse if these societies began to tinker with lives of people around. Hopefully, its not.

About Kidman and others being sex slaves - i do not know if thats main thing Kubrik had in its mind. In this case, that much different from what usually understood as sex slaves. I think Kidman has no sex scenes at all in the movie (except her dreams) and I wonder if Cruise had ANY sex with her in real life or in the movies - to that extent she is sexless, or their relation. Completely, I would say, sexless.

Yet, about the girl in the shop and the escort girls - well, you must wonder, if there is any normal women in this movies at all. They are all w****s, from Kidman (theoretically) to all others (practically). So what? is it a the point? I would say, there is no normal men either, from the doctor (who despite having lovely wife, visits escort girls) to Pollack character and others, who are all real freaks. Is this a point of the movie - all men are freaks?

Lastly about being followed - you can hire many people for various things, if you have enough money. I do not see any power of the elite here. I also do not think that elite in the movie IS an elite at all.

Well, I guess I am still confused about the movie. I also did not the point..

kcmac · Oct 8, 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Obsessive anti-Bushies always find a way to Bash Bush in the most oddest threads.

Seek help.

Can't a brother have some fun? Ya gotta admit, the quote that I responded to was slightly over the top. Sounds like I got your short hairs standin up just a bit, eh?

freudling · Oct 8, 2006, 03:05 PM

About secret elite socieities: if they manage to coexist peacefully with people around, immersed in themselves, I see nothing bad with that. It would be rather worse if these societies began to tinker with lives of people around. Hopefully, its not.

The point is that they do tinker with people's lives. Kidman's dream of being with the serviceman: military officials have been implicated in the MKULTRA campaign...

marden · Oct 8, 2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by kcmac

Can't a brother have some fun? Ya gotta admit, the quote that I responded to was slightly over the top. Sounds like I got your short hairs standin up just a bit, eh?

It just shows how casually and without thinking anything of it that you do this. It's not cool. And it's certainly not smart.

Kevin · Oct 8, 2006, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by kcmac

Can't a brother have some fun? Ya gotta admit, the quote that I responded to was slightly over the top. Sounds like I got your short hairs standin up just a bit, eh?

Short hairs? Naw, I would have reported you if that was the case.

Just making an observation.

kcmac · Oct 8, 2006, 08:20 PM

Wow. If you pay any attention to what I usually post, you would realize I am kidding and add positively to MacNN and all of its forums. I don't think I am the one around here that needs to think just a little bit.

Now lets let it drop. I will refrain from making any political observations here if you refrain from getting so paranoid.

Peace.

Kevin · Oct 8, 2006, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by kcmac

Now lets let it drop. I will refrain from making any political observations here if you refrain from getting so paranoid.

Paranoid? What the...

Seriously, just quit it.

pyrite · Oct 9, 2006, 03:01 AM

the movie was bollox, start to finish

Paco500 · Oct 9, 2006, 08:32 AM

No sir, I didn't like it.

nerd · Oct 9, 2006, 10:33 AM

I was working 4am shifts when that movie was out. I could watch all kinds of movies and not fall asleep when we'd go to the theater in the afternoon. I fell asleep in the first 15 minutes of Eyes Wide Shut. Enough said......

Hash · Oct 9, 2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

About secret elite socieities: if they manage to coexist peacefully with people around, immersed in themselves, I see nothing bad with that. It would be rather worse if these societies began to tinker with lives of people around. Hopefully, its not.

The point is that they do tinker with people's lives. Kidman's dream of being with the serviceman: military officials have been implicated in the MKULTRA campaign...

They tinker with lives of others only if othes tinker wit their.. think for a second: people gather to have some kind of group sex (well, with masks on their faces). Is it legal or not? if its OK, why would the doctor pursue them? Secondly, I do not get the thing about MKULTRA and how it is connected with the officer in the movies, even in Kidman's dream.

Probably I never understood the movie anyway. Some say it had stunning visuals. I do not see any stunning visuals except that London streets were changed to look like NY