 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Its a film of true love, honesty, openess in marriage, an element of murder mystery. The penertrating eyes of Nicole Kidman are very seductive, and the damn smirk of Tom Cruise isnt as annoying as one would expect. The sound track adds a lot of heart beats... Kind of like the music from the Exorcist, very eery...Dark beautiful go see it. It is for mature audiences and I don't mean being able to handle the nudity. I mean being able to grasp the theme and meaning of the film. Everybody sees it a different way but I think it has one general theme as I mentioned in my first sentence.
The wife and I saw it this weekend. It's not too surprising that it was only showing at one time in one local multi-plex, geez it's dying quickly in the theaters. You couldn't get a ticket for the new Burce Willis flick (not that I wanted one), but it was in 2 or 3 of the little theaters inside and completely sold out!I have to agree with Victor. I can't call this a good film, thought provoking comes to mind. I felt it dragged on and on, the piano one note got boring, Nicole drove me nuts by taking forever to say anything and the ending did suck, nothing was resolved, it just stopped, thankfully as I feared it might go on yet another hour.
But the thought provoking aspect is important and does separate this from typical Hollyweird fare. For that, it's worth seeing, but not on video late at night, it'll put you to sleep.
Long ago I was taught to always buy the worst year of the best winery, not the other way around. I first realized how true it was when openning the $20 boutle of chateau La Tour.The Eyes fall exactly into that category. Which is quite unfortunate, to say the least. It is on the brink of being a total waste, if not for some masterful moments.
With his wife's "acting" being completely wooden with no redeaming values whatsoever, just irritating to no limit (most reminiscent of a typical former model "acting"), nice buttocks and all, I was actually surprised to find Tom's work being of a very good caliber, possibly the best performance in that movie. He is not offensive at all and is quite convincing.
A long, pointless, silly and almost boring two hours. A totally idiotic ending - how could that master do thing like that? Yes, it is still head and shoulders above the 95% of what you can see today, but what that its only point?
And the orgy.... a big painful yawn... If I ever was invited to such forbidden entertainment, I would certainly fall asleep after the first half hour. How is it possible that Kubrick was not able to produce any visual stunning moments in that boring scene? Has he not seen for example, the Greenoway's Prospero's? That is one tremendous visual treat that keeps you riveted for at least twenty minutes (I was not able to sit throught he whole movie, though). In the Eyes' case, you get bored after the first minute.
I am wondering if one of the driving reasons for making the film was to try to shock. In that case it certianly pales in comparisson to things like Salo and even the Caligula - the things that had some originality to them if only back then. So, again, what's the point? Coming from someone who had given us the trailblazing masterpieces like the Orange and the Barry Lyndon, this is one tremendous waste.
The low points like that one are not unusual at all in the careers of great masters. It is simply sad that his life ended on this low note.
Victor.
.
The film is about commerce, simple and plain. You may or may not have noticed the christmas tree and taxi cab motif but from what I theorize christmas was at one time a religious holiday it has since become a commercial one. The taxi's; rented, used, and, deserted. Kubrick's final film is not about true love, but prostitution; in the traditional and figurative sense of the word. Notice, for example, the way Bill Hartford flaunts his money, as if everything carries with it a price. The framing and set design is beautiful but the acting and editing (for gods sake the editing!) was amateur. This may however have been done intentionally, but the only link I see to the film's theme is the fact that an old master now draws the dollars based on name alone. Easter is for Easter baskets, right? Ahh, just saw it for the first time last night and I'm rambling. Trying to think of rebuttles for a Kubrick groupie in my class who is sure to find no faults in the film. Peace, Tim.BTW loved those mystery men in the cloaks! (were they drawn in with a crayola!) The most glorious cinematic sequence in the film RUINED, well not that bad, but not that good either.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
