Eyes Wide Shut

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (580 of them)

I enjoyed EWS' dreamy qualities and the way it was like a David Lynch film, implying that beside our everyday life there is a universe next door of strangeness and menace.

I wonder to what extent do its problems come from its being based on a novel set in Habsburg Vienna before the first world war, with the story being only updated to the present day in the most superficial manner?

― DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

DV is right - when you read the source material, it's surprising just how faithful EWS is to Schnitzler's slight, surreal comedy of manners. The tokenistic updating. and relocation to an obviously constructed 'New York', only adds to the film's detached and dreamlike air - nothing in it feels 'right' or 'real'. And I think Kubrick is gently mocking Cruise's status as number one sex symbol by getting him to play a bit of a bumbling idiot who stumbles from one encounter to another, seemingly oblivious to other people's desire for him. DV is also on the money w/ the David Lynch comparison - according to Lynch, Kubrick once nominated 'Eraserhead' as his fave film, and you can see the things that they have in common - exquisitely composed images, sloooow pacing, an air of menace and mystery, a refusal to give the viewer 'obvious' answers. Even after watching EWS a couple of times, I'd be hard-pressed to articulate what the film is 'saying' exactly - be careful of what you wish for? That the idea of infidelity is better than the actuality? That desire has nothing to do with 'relationships'? Or that dull marriages need a bit of spicing up? Not sure that Kubrick is "the most intellectual of the 20th century's filmmakers" tho' - Godard or Antonioni might have something to say abt that.

― Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

one thing that is funny about the Schnitzler novel is how short and fast paced it is. Things that in the film take ages (like, say, the wife dancing with that sleazy aristocrat) fly by in a sentence in the book.

My favourite bit of the film is when the frat boys shout at Cruise that he is a short arsed faggot. I'd love to know if that was Kubrick taking advantage of Cruise being a short-arse and widely rumoured to be secretly gay.

― DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Godard and Antononi work wiht their bodies . Kubrick seems to work with his mind. Lynch is close but it seems much less horrorfic. More like a genteel Egoyan

― anthony, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Haven't seen EWS: am inclined to "like" it cuz in film-review land it had a hard critical time in a boring way, but unlikely to seek it out as *I* have such a hard time w.Kubrick, every time. Kubrick = Antonioni = ppl who are called intellectuals and i TOTALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. No ideas that *I* wd call ideas evah bounce around in their movies (Antonioni = worse, since i believe he iz A MAJOR IDIOT).

ps I have still not seen clockwork orange or red desert, but as these are the definitive make-or-break items in each case, i am reluctant to do so: if they are bad, then where does that leave these alleged genii?

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Dont even get me STARTED on that piece of dung. Schniztler's novella was pretty good. Kubrick however took it to the 20th century and hence destroyed it.

― nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Mark S, maybe they have a different sense of humour? I do see humour in some of their movies.
Anyway, I think Kubrick had it worked out so well. Use a celeb couple. This will give the viewer a stronger sense of him/her being a voyeur. Because that is what we are. (Classic example of this is "Peeping Tom.") Eyes Wide Shut is about infedility but not the reality of it. It is all a dream (hence the title of the book, Traumnovella or the title of the movie Eyes Wide Shut). It is of course extremely freudian. Schniztler was friends with Sigmund and that shows in the story. But where the book worked, I don't believe in the film. This sort of thing isn't really plausible in the 20th century. People work out their lack of chemistry in their own marriage in other ways. They don't suppress their urges, they will express them. Secondly Tom Cruise can't act.

― nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Kubrick's 'sense of humour' - well, Dr. Strangelove obv. (tho' lots of it seems like Terry Southern to me, "precious bodily fluids" etc.) plus the fact that he did like to indulge rather broad English character actors (Leonard Rossiter in '2001' and 'Barry Lyndon', Michael Bates in 'Clockwork Orange', Sellars in 'Strangelove' and 'Lolita', even Alan Cummings in 'Eyes Wide Shut'.) I also think Lee Emery is v. v. funny in 'Full Metal Jacket'. 'The Shining', 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' all work for me as black comedies.

Antonioni's 'ideas' - that alienation can be a beautiful thing. Or, objects and landscapes can be more interesting than people, and that we can have 'relationships' w/spaces, architecture, colours.

― Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Eyes Wide Shut?

Eyes Wide Shit more like.

― DavidM, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I like dit allot thoug it was long as usual for Owl man. I was horrified at times. It had a dark ominous something in the background. Lie sexuality brings us both pleasure but hidden withiin is also menace. Kind of like the whole catholic guilt thing. I really enjoyed the two dwarfs and the littel girl part. What the...!?

― Pennysong Hanle y, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

peeping tom = not kubrick, nathalie

having relationships w.colours not ppl = a good direction for mark s possibly sigh

― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Mark S. I know. I was talking about voyeurism used in film.

― nathalie, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I was really amped for this movie. I was expecting something dark, twisted and sensual.

What I got was Tom Cruise smugging the camera for THREE HOURS. "Eyes Wide Shut" can eat me. Had Tom been edited out of it, it would have been an infitely better movie. Hell, chopping out an hour of meandering would have made it a better movie. It tried so hard to be surreal that it ended up being ass.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Eyes Wide Shut is the best film ever made by a man or a woman.

― Nick, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I really hoped it would be Kubrick's balls out porn movie. Since he had made loads of other types of movies it would have made sense. I thought it looked great but was about as dull as 2001, which is a pretty high watermark in the dullness of cinema.

Anyone see the Kubrick doco's on the last week. Woody Allen on Dr Strangelove was very interesting, saying that it wasn't as funny as it should be as Sellars stretched himself too much and Kubrick had no real sense of timing. Interesting.

― Pete, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Blimey they could have got me to say that and saved on airfare. I am inclined to argue that A.Lyne's Lolita = bettah.
Use Other Argts Please: "But 2001 is ABOUT boredom and sterility! It is a SATIRE!!"

― mark s, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

2001 probably loses a lot without context, ie being on the big screen in the 60s. The perplexing ending is one of my favorite things ever committed to film.

Of the Kubrick movies I've seen, the best is CLEARLY "A Clockwork Orange". That's the only one with any real sense of pacing. "The Shining" has some brilliant moments in it, too. Haven't seen "Full Metal Jacket" or "Lolita" and I can't remember "Dr. Strangelove".

― Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

six months pass...

The first time I saw it EWS I thought it was average, the second time I thought it seemed different, I actually got into the slow pace, I just don't know if the version is as Kubrick intended it, didn't he die before the final cut?

― Daniel Cross, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Yes, he did. Tho I think it probably would have been a "failed" movie anyway. You know all those shots where Tom Cruise is in the back of the cab, in his gloves and dark coat, brooding and scowling? You can find the orig. script(s) online, and in them, these shots were all supposed to have voice-over, kind of "get inside his head" type moments... but we never really get inside his head... Kubrick raises questions that seem good at first because he's trying to hypnotize you, but even if you accept them as interesting ("is infidelity in mind equivalent to infidelity in body?" has some potential though I think is maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought) his angles of attack are all waaay too oblique; they bounce off the problem like lawn darts off a Michelin... the b&w 90210-style jealousy flashbacks with the naval officer didn't help... and I can't see Koobie throwing a Chris Isaac bar-rocker over his immaculately arranged confection, yet there it is... the mansion scene an ENORMOUS let-down; I was with it up to that point; "Nick Nightingale" was fantastic.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

UPDATE: I've seen "Full Metal Jacket" now and it was EXCELLENT, better than "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick should have done a series of movies about the Vietnam War.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I thought the one bit where EWS really failed was the slapstick - that chase around the shop or whatever it was. Kubrick's best comic moments were always more oblique. For instance: Dr. Strangelove, to me, is the most obviously comic yet least funny character Peter Sellers plays in that film; HAL is the ultimate deadpan comic; and in The Shining you can interpret Scatman Crothers' axeing as a massive gag by SK at the audience's expense.

― dan, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

three months pass...

this movie is about the child parent relationship!!

also, it is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen

― bc, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought" = seven-word summary of his entire whatever, pretty much

― mark s, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

mark
i think you need to be nicer to the GREATEST FILMAKER OF THE 20TH CENTURY

― anthony, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Lyne's Lolita is terrible! Such an agonizingly stupid reading of the book (he thinks Nabokov actually wanted you to sympathize with Humbert, while Kubrick understood right off that H. was a total bastard who just happened to be the narrator, hence he's going to make himself look as much the victim as possible.)

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Haven't seen Eyes Wide Shut, actually.

― Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

i don't really like any of the versions of lolita, inc.nabokov's

kubrick's is ruined by peter sellers mainly: haha i tht lyne's worked bettah becuz the day i am sympathetic to jeremy irons is the day i exfoliate my legs w.nitric acid!!

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Kubrick = no-where nr a great filmmaker.

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

I think Kubrick is very humorous. EWS = essentially a comedy, as noted above. In fact, I would say most of Kubrick's movies are in some way humorous. Antonioni is mostly insufferable, except for L'avventura, which is a masterpiece.

As for Kubrick being great, what does it take for a director to be great? One great film? Kubrick has two: Barry Lyndon and 2001.

― ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

2001?

1. First hour = tedium not 'hypnosis'.

2. Flying bone begats spaceship = clumsy facsimile of more graceful scene in A Canterbury Tale (1944) [falcon begats spitfire]

3. Women still know their place, in pink and receptionists and stewardesses in 2001.

4. "One long wig-out for stoners, their wits reduced to wet tar by too much acid..."

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

bone->'spaceship' seems much more LOGICAL than a bird->a plane.

but I haven't seen the a bird->a plane and don't know why it happens.

― RJG, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

actually its bone -> weapons satellite. Which makes perfect sense, esp considering what the bone represents. The cold war is all over that movie.

― ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

haha re girls in 2001: the stewardess who does the 180º vertical walk-turn has industrial strength VPL!!! => any philosophy the movie DID contain would be thus be set at naught... as it happens it doesn't contain any, so as you were

i quite like the bit where hal is killing the boring spacemen, but sadly the wrong robot wins

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

But more clumsy, less graceful, like the spaceships moving about in spacey bits, like three actors, strings, and staring over the side of the set, down at their puppet Spaceships, all juddery, Clangers-like incombumblence. Clumsy, not graceful. All content, no style.

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

the clangers roXoR!! it is SO *WAY* bettah than 2001: better spaceships, better special effects, better characters (it actually HAS characters), better story, better music (ok i like ligeti), better curvature of planet surface

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

haha i read david h(owie)'s post where he says "still receptionists in 2001" and tht "how do you know what year it's set? i don't remember them mentioning that..."

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Mark, you forgot the best reason Clangers >> 2001: better knitting!

― RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

And and and 2001 only has a robot, whereas Clangers has a robot (metal chicken) and dinosaurs (soup dragon and child)

― RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

But 2001 has APES!

― Andrew L, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

four months pass...

i just watched EWS: i did like it kinda, even if it has – as usual w. kubriXoR — industrial strength bad acting and mucho lame clumsiness, and is entirely NOT "deep" or stuff

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)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 11 November 2002 22:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

ews = kubrick's closest to realized potential

― boxcubed (boxcubed), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 01:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

Mark you should really watch Lolita again. (It contains the best acting in any Kubrick film ever, seemingly by accident)

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 03:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

(and also some of the worst, as does EWS - s.pollack-as-himself especially notwithstanding. and i loved EWS)

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

― jones (actual), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 17:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

one year passes...

for all of the films faults the masked ceremony scene is one of the most chilling sections of any movie ever. the masks are freaky as fuck. they make every move of the head or the body so weighted and confusing.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:49 (nineteen years ago) link

A dreadful film.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:52 (nineteen years ago) link

i pretty much agree.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:54 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh...good.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:56 (nineteen years ago) link

we have to, after all.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Talk To Her

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:04 (nineteen years ago) link

:_(

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:07 (nineteen years ago) link

no this film is so misunderstood. It is amazing.

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:11 (nineteen years ago) link

Skipping 480 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

keitel was otm. telling an actor he can't walk through a door properly after 68 takes is disrespectful in the extreme. and fucking crazy, too.

mark s should specify which kubrick film he thinks is the one good one, so everyone who likes just one kubrick film can see if they agree which one is the good one

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:03 (one year ago) link

keitel otm, another dumb and bad film, sorry anthony, sorry morbs kubrick only made one good film and this isn't it

What kind of trolling bullshit is this

― calstars, Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:06 (one year ago) link

it's a strongly worded opinion. like most of yours.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:08 (one year ago) link

i’m sure ol’ stan was a frustrating guy to work for at times but “i had to walk through a doorway a bunch of times” is not exactly a chilling tale of directorial tyranny run rampant

for some reason i thought this was the kubrick film mark s thought was good!

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:27 (one year ago) link

barry lyndon is the one that IS good (implausibly good)

― mark s, Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:38 (one year ago) link

how odd. that's not the one I think is his good one. one of us must be wrong!

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:47 (one year ago) link

barry lyndon is truly awesome but come on eyes wide shut is a dream!!!!

keitel: he made me walk through a door 68 times

me: sounds like a kubrick movie

― flamenco drop (BradNelson), Saturday, 14 May 2022 18:56 (one year ago) link

I would guess this dumbass hasn't seen Paths Of Glory.

― billstevejim, Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:03 (one year ago) link

me? no

― mark s, Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:19 (one year ago) link

im not going to either

― mark s, Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:20 (one year ago) link

No director should demand anything of an actor with the range of Winston Wolfe to Arkansas State Police Detective Hal Slocumb.

― gonna make you sweat the technique, gonna make you groove is in the heart (PBKR), Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:22 (one year ago) link

i’m sure ol’ stan was a frustrating guy to work for at times but “i had to walk through a doorway a bunch of times” is not exactly a chilling tale of directorial tyranny run rampant

lol this is disgusting

people on side kubrick re: this topic need some perspective

― the cat needs to start paying for its own cbd (map), Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:25 (one year ago) link

I just watched the Cannibal Holocaust ep of Cursed Films, and from that perspective, yeah, team Kubrick

― Eggs Benedick (Eric H.), Sunday, 15 May 2022 16:57 (one year ago) link

not sure which film I had a worse time in the cinema watching, eyes wide shut or a.i., I think the eyes have it.

― buffalo tomozzarella (ledge), Sunday, 15 May 2022 17:05 (one year ago) link

I’ve heard pollack somewhere make basically the same complaint about doing that role, but iirc his attitude was more “this is confusing and annoying but it still beats working”

― nobody like my rap (One Eye Open), Sunday, 15 May 2022 18:42 (one year ago) link

I can easily envision Keitel in that role--he'd probably lose some of Pollack's superficial slickness, otherwise he would have been a good fit.

― clemenza, Sunday, 15 May 2022 18:55 (one year ago) link

five months pass...

https://i.imgur.com/yL9TPI4.jpg

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 26 October 2022 20:29 (one year ago) link

that's how they made half of The Mandalorian iirc

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 26 October 2022 20:55 (one year ago) link

eyes wide shut needed more baby yoda

― mark s, Wednesday, 26 October 2022 21:03 (one year ago) link

False, Mandalorian needed more of Tom Cruise getting gay-bashed

― Eric H., Wednesday, 26 October 2022 22:17 (one year ago) link

😱

― mh, Thursday, 27 October 2022 01:30 (one year ago) link

seven months pass...

Quite a piece which deploys the book (and film) a bit

I rarely write personal essays, but this time I did, about the stickiest of all conversations we might have with our significant others.https://t.co/xJdBYFL4sJ
— Megan Abbott (@meganeabbott) June 2, 2023

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 4 June 2023 14:40 (ten months ago) link

four months pass...

You Must Remember This is coming to the end of its Erotic 80s/90s seasons and I believe is wrapping it up with a two-parter on EWS. First episode is up:

https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/eyes-wide-shut-part-1-erotic-90s-part-20

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:29 (six months ago) link

Honestly, give her the Peabody

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:30 (six months ago) link

Rather!

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:38 (six months ago) link

one of the least erotic film about sex I know

― assert (matttkkkk), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 18:29 (six months ago) link

Sex itself is, I think, pretty low on the list of things this movie's about but ymmv

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 18:38 (six months ago) link

really? “let’s fuck”?

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 19:15 (six months ago) link

The last line of the picture, and it’s just “Fuck.” (And it’s a punchline.)

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 19:41 (six months ago) link

okay well i mean don’t be coy the idea idea that eyes wide shut isn’t about sex is an unusual one you have to admit, say more

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:10 (six months ago) link

I'd say it's about the fear of sex?

― Halfway there but for you, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:11 (six months ago) link

It's "We fuck" isn't it?

― ...eh you get the gist of it (dog latin), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:17 (six months ago) link

"You know, there is something very important that we need to do as soon as possible"
"What's that?"
"Fuck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOHvgvRVCDo

― Judi Dench's Human Hand (methanietanner), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:26 (six months ago) link

Schooled!

― ...eh you get the gist of it (dog latin), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:30 (six months ago) link

The podcast is a treasure obviously but I forgot how Longworth hits all her “t”s “EroTic eighTies” .. frankly it’s not just that, her whole Chef John intonation drives me to distraction. but i will listen for the info :)

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 12:01 (six months ago) link

She veers very very close to Moira Rose territory

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:03 (six months ago) link

It’s been driving me crazy all day just needed to share

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:04 (six months ago) link

Her delivery has definitely gotten more arch and affected over the years, to the point that if you’re not highly invested in the content, it’s practically unlistenable

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:06 (six months ago) link

She used to get criticised a lot online for not ennunciating properly and has overcorrected. Can't win.

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:10 (six months ago) link

The podcast is a treasure obviously but I forgot how Longworth hits all her “t”s “EroTic eighTies” .. frankly it’s not just that, her whole Chef John intonation drives me to distraction. but i will listen for the info :)

Omg this

― calstars, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:19 (six months ago) link

It's close enough to an incantatory delivery that I look forward to listening

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:37 (six months ago) link

(Which means it'll be a good match for Kubrick)

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:37 (six months ago) link

Roffle. I roll with it, it's fine! Met her years ago well before the podcast started, she's a good sort.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:34 (six months ago) link

If you join her patreon you can get transcripts, for those of you here who find it so horrible TO HEAR A WOMAN SPEAK.

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:36 (six months ago) link

I've always liked her delivery. She also has a very wry sense of humor.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:39 (six months ago) link

I haven't given her podcast the attention it deserves. I'm streaming the sex, lies and videotape ep.

― hat trick of trashiness (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:41 (six months ago) link

The series she did on Polly Platt and the one on Dead Blondes were especially good.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:43 (six months ago) link

two weeks pass...

if you don't have the 2.5 hours free to watch EWS then just watch the video for Laura Branigan's "Self Control" which is the same plot and many of the same shots but is like 5 minutes long, predates EWS by 15 years and has a really cool song over it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZtn9AwgfQQ
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:31

lmao otm

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 4 November 2023 23:11 (five months ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.