Eyes Wide Shut

i like the weird glow he gave new york: nicole k is pretty good too, tho shelly duval is still the only woman SK actually ever met, i think (except for his daughter who wants a bushbaby)

haha yes mark see lolita again - surely some new level of meaning to be gleaned there, as you must be about the kid's age by now

BONNNNNGGG

BONNNNNGGG

BONNNNNGGG

BONNNNNGGG

yes

A friend of mine and I were talking about Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" last weekend. My friend observed that whenever he asked his guy friends if they liked "Eyes Wide Shut", an overwhelming majority praised it, but when he would ask his women friends what they thought, an overwhelming majority said they hated it.

Being curious, I looked at the ratings for EWS on the movie database, and indeed there is a pretty significant gender split, with males rating the movie much higher than females across age groups.

Of course, I'd take the movie database's ratings with a grain of salt, but assuming it might reflect a true difference...theories? Perhaps women find Nicole Kidman's character more interesting than Tom Cruise's, but given the short-shrift in the storyline?

oh dere's tits

Hmm, I hate admitting that it might be the fact I'm a woman. But I did hate it at the time. The idea seemed terrific on paper but I hated the way it played out. Now, after so many years and having read his biography (well, both Kubrick's and Cruise's), I think I might actually turn around and actually enjoy it. At the time I hated it because it was a late 19th century Freudian book converted to a 20th century story. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? I think I was (maybe still am) very hesitant to praise Freud.

I watched it again recently and I was really struck by how AWFUL Tom Cruise is.

Cruise seems willfully bad in this film. I feel like Kubrick must have directed him to be so incredibly flat for a purpose. In a way it feels appropriate, as the doctor is dreaming all these scenes and he is not really functioning as an agent. Rather, this action is happening to him, and his blankness can be seen as an indicator of his remove.

it was a late 19th century Freudian book converted to a 20th century story.

Still seemed very 19th-century Viennese to me (under the veneer, where it counts).

to be honest, i never thought his performance was that bad and i've seen it many times. i see how it could be seen as flat though -- that seems to be his attempt to act dumbstruck by what's happening to him, which actually does lack depth.

but nicole kidman is awesome to watch in this -- it's the sort of unstable character she knows how to play.

also um yeah the boys like this movie cuz there are like, 40 naked women in it?

only in the newly available Euro version.

Dr, I don't agree, really, the story was transposed to Hollywood/LA. I shoudl see it again. I'm relying on my (crappy) memory. What I now realize: how painful it is to see their marriage fall apart on screen. Very weird and, in a way, painful.

It's set in New York! An invented Kubrickian one, of course.

at the same time that you were more dear to me than ever, i would have given everything -- everything -- for just one moment

with him

xpost with HOLLYWOOD ACTORS. :-) Yes, yes, I know,you're right.

Men are more likely to be kubrick fanboys would prob answer the question as to why men like it better.

Regarding cruise: movies like ews always make me feel sort of confused when people criticize performances. I don't have any idea if a performance is good or not. Why criticize cruise and not, say, an actor in a bresson film?

Which is to say, that all talk about the goodness or badness of a performance seems to be ignoring the very large gap between intention and effect. I am always dumbfounded when asked to consider the quality of a performance and I don't quite know how to resolve that.much of the time people's responses to an actor seem to involve either massive amounts of projection or a sort of consumer choice as to whether you find the actor generally palatable.

I can buy that. Because at the same time they did get a lot of detail correct in their street set - specific lettering on signs, decals on newspaper stands etc. - which contributes an uncanny aspect to those scenes.

Parts of the film reminded me very much of Scorsese's After Hours. I wonder if that was an influence.

This New York has the same dream quality as the european(?) city in the unconsoled by Ishiguro imo.

Here’s a real corner you could see in this movie though tbf

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Kk3oZ2NYeTxaxphE7?g_st=ic

He was nothing if not consistently deliberate in details that seem wrong (ie the impossible interior layout of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining). One detail in EWS that signals to me that we’re in a fantasy/imagined NYC is that the buildings are numbered sequentially on the same side of a street (36, 37, 38).

blog post on exactly this https://www.scoutingny.com/stanley-kubrick-the-shining-new-york-city-the-filming-locations-of-eyes-wide-shut/

Interesting. Between the blog post and the comments it looks like they're covering all the ways to look at this. Seems as if Kubrick and his sets are kind of like Hitchcock and his green screens - it's difficult to nail down their exact intentions, if any.

(Aside: someone online said the costume shop in EWS was based on the facade of Trash and Vaudeville in the the East Village and I thought "no it's not, it looks just like a particular storefront on West 8th St. - I've shopped there!")... and someone in the blog comments supports my take.

Getting the full-on Criterion overview:

https://www.criterion.com/films/34534-eyes-wide-shut

maybe finally time for me to get a 4k player

seems like there's quite a bit of controversy about the transfer! I'll withhold judgment until I see it, but some of the still images look great to me, with suitable grain and not overly crisp lights...so we'll see.

A Discord I'm on with some heavy film geeks were going on about the aspect ratio.

Good grain and nice colours to my eyes. Not as nice as the 35mm print that's been doing the rounds but you can't have everything.

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999) 35mm scan. 4K, one 5.1 audio track and 19 subtitle options. More info below.
Link: https://t.co/gqA10wQX8W pic.twitter.com/Nvggqf27x6

— kalasevsky (@kalasevsky) May 2, 2024

Él gets the Criterion nod.

https://www.criterion.com/films/33695-el

― Ned Raggett, Monday, August 18, 2025 1:30 PM (seven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

about time!

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, August 18, 2025 2:05 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Seeing way more chatter about it than Criterion releasing Eyes Wide Shut as well, that's for sure.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, August 18, 2025 3:14 PM (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

An Eyes Wide Shut directed by Don Luis would've been a keeper.

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, August 18, 2025 3:32 PM

I got a panasonic and ordered this, Sorcerer, and Barry Lyndon today. RIP my wallet but I think it's gonna be well worth it.

Even tho I doubt my eyes can muster full 4K resolution these days, the UHD discs often pay much more attention to dynamic range etc, a much more film like experience for me. The 4K of ALIEN is particularly great.