EYES WIDE SHUT 25 Years Later: The Extremely Long & Troubled Production That Broke STANLEY KUBRICK
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- It's the 25th anniversary of STANLEY KUBRICK'S final film EYES WIDE SHUT!
In this video, we dive deep into its tumultuous production, including the various controversies that plagued the set, and how Kubrick's obsessive nature may have ultimately led to his own demise shortly before its premiere in 1999.
Did Kubrick torment TOM CRUISE & NICOLE KIDMAN? Did he admit to a friend that he thought the movie was "a piece of s---"? Did the studio censor the final cut? All these questions will be answered!
#stanleykubrick #tomcruise #nicolekidman #movies #1999 #filmreview #makingof #cursedfilms #1990s #eyeswideshut #drama #movieclips
SUBSCRIBE:
/ @hollywoodvulture
in the Kubrick documentary voiced by Tom Cruise, he mentions the many takes, and also he went into the film a married man and left divorced.
That’s a great doc, but it’s a hard watch. Kubrik could be very cruel.
Yeah? One what date during the production of EYES WIDE SHUT were the divorce papers signed and approved by a court.? Post proof.
I suspect it was Scientology that broke up that marriage; not the filming of Eyes Wide Shut. Tom Cruise is 3 for 3 for failed marriages.
And he pivoted to action movies only after this experience.
Not a terrible movie but not a masterpiece. Rumor has it if Kubrick hadnt died he would have re-edited it because one of the key problems is it's slow pacing . But tbh it's problems go beyond pacing
Also - if he didn't die I believe Warner Bros would have seriously reigned in his freedom on making movies....
I always know when people know their shit when they bring out the Joe Eszterhas quotes 🤣 yesss ❤
Ya gotta have an Eszterhas quote! 😂
Just as Kubrick described in that interview excerpt, I went to the theater expecting or hoping for a film beyond his previous achievements, but found something more unassuming and subdued. I was disappointed, and it took a couple more viewings for it to grow on me, and to discover the true experience he had intended.
I saw Eyes Wide Shut on its opening day in '99. My initial reaction was mixed but I was familiar enough with Kubrick by this time that I knew his films oftentimes benefited from multiple viewings. The second screening did not improve that ambivalent reaction and I found myself struggling to stay awake. No other Kubrick film has ever bored me so much. When a box set of Kubrick films was released I bought it (mostly for the documentary included which was at the time unavailable separately). It was not the uncensored version which wasn't available until years later. Yes I bought it. No matter how many times I've tried to rewatch the film my reaction only gets increasingly worse and I find the story trite and trivial. The acting is terrible. Kubrick's films existed in an exaggerated reality and exaggerated behaviour usually fit, but here there is a clash of styles that never meld together very well. There are scenes that are just cringeworthy, like the one in the costume shop and the discovery of the Japanese businessmen and the owner's daughter. It plays like bad slapstick comedy. Watching Nicole Kidman play stoned is another awkward moment. Kubrick seems out of touch with the behaviour of people and everyone feels like a caricature. When all is said and done I just didn't care at all about any of these characters. I went in with a predisposed dislike for Tom Cruise and his lifeless "performance" did nothing to correct this view. I still hold the opinion that this is Kubrick's worst film. I wish he had stuck with AI or resurrected The Aryan Papers. Anything else but this sleeping pill of a film. His insights into marriage, sexual obsession, etc are inane. I recommend the Nicolas Roeg film Bad Timing which tackles the same subject but much better.
Kidman said Kubrick hated explaining what he wants to actors. Maybe if he did he might have needed less takes.
Something is missing from the film that would have tied it together. I'm not sure if we'll ever know what all that is.
The only Kubrick film I got to see in the theater. I enjoyed it then, but have come to really appreciate it over the years.
@@ministerofdarkness
What is good about it?
It’s a masterpiece
@@user-sb1qe6qx5i
Like hell it is. Bad script, bad acting and terrible ending.
Behind the scenes stories that further advance my theory that Kubrick did not know what he was doing with actors.
It's been obvious since the 80s. Reshooting a take 100 times isn't genius, it's incompetence.
100 takes is unprofessional. After working with Kubrick, it made working with Fincher feel like you're working with Eastwood.
@@PhantomFilmAustraliasounds like throwing shit at that wall until something sticks.
@@diy_mushroomguy That's trial and error. It may be acceptable for a difficult scene which may not be working as scripted, but an entire 2-hour movie shooting over 2 years like that is completely disorganized and unprepared. It's why pre-production is so important. Prepare, rehearse, refine, and bring your A-game on the day of the shoot. Can you imagine being a steady-cam operator or holding the boom pole on a Kubrick film? The actors may be getting the millions, but serious injury as a lowly paid member of the production crew isn't worth indulging a director's ego.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia Maybe diy_mushroomguy didn't catch your comparison of "Good
Old Reasonable Number of Takes" Fincher with Clint "Fewer Than 2 Takes" Eastwood. "Get
this thing into the can," saith the Preacher, "then we can all go home."
14:00 So thats where that quote is from! I only heard the part where Kubrick said Cruise and Kidman had their way with him. Never knew he said the move as also a piece of trash.
Eyes wide shut and Barry Lyndon bore me to tears. I tried rewatching them… still bored.
3rd time's the charm 🤣
This is one of three films that I refused to watch because they looked so humdrum and/or generic. When I finally watched it over 15 years after it was released, I absolutely loved it.
The two other films were Interview with a Vampire, and Titanic - again I absolutely loved them both.
It's called "Interview with THE Vampire."
@@darthkek1953 I know - I wrote it to annoy you.
I think EWS is an excellent & interesting flick. I reject the naysayers. It’s really dark & compelling in a complex & surreal way. It took me years & multiple viewings to really appreciate or understand it.
Eyes Wide Shut. Awful.
When it was mentioned that Kubrick died, possibly due to the stress of the film, I immediately thought of Hollywood Animal and Richard Marquand. And then…. Tip of the Hat
Great minds think alike!
Eyes wide shut is an excellent film,and interestingly is a film reveared by other great directors like scorsese and Spielberg, both of whom knew kubrick well and understood his life long obsession with jealousy and sexual obsession, this was a film that had been 30 years in the making and it has since "99 now stood the test of time.i find people who don't like it ,usually don't actually understand it or the messages kubrick was sending to audiences. The best films are generally the least accessible, and perhaps that's how it should be ,for everyone else ,you have mainstream entertainment which doesn't require much thought or investment. In the words of Henmingway:just because a book is written doesn't mean everyone should read it.
I watched it atound 16 didnt understand kubrick yet hated it, now i find it uninteresting but appreciate what he was trying to do im not married maybe thats why.
So explain it to us please.
@@danieltuval8879
No, it’s a terrible movie. This whole notion of special understanding belonging to those who like it is such nonsense. It is an objectively stupid work, overacted and poorly written, ending with a line that left people booing and rightfully so.
I actually quite liked the first part where Bill is sent on his journey of weirdness.
The second half has some moments as well but it feels kind of anti climactic.
Terrible film? Far from it, and those saying it is should not be taken seriously.
i liked it
@@rickescuna
What is there to like other than a few visual flourishes? You keep waiting for it to do something other than hover above these two jackasses and it never happens.
@@rickescuna
Care to explain why?
I neither liked nor disliked the movie - the endiing sort of ruined the film for me. No big twist or weird ending - it just sort of ended. I enjoyed the film but without a solid ending, it just sort of fizzled out. Tom cruise is always good and he never goves a bad performance...i just wished the movie had something interesting to say.
Much more about the mood and cinematography than story.
Such an awful movie. Wasn't any chemistry between Kidman and Cruise, everything about that movie was shameful and sexless. It's all spectacle and atmosphere, like a loud stinkless fart. generally refer to it as "Eyes Wide Sh*t".
You were very generous to say "stinkless"
@@hollywoodvulture I do love the atmosphere in so many Kubrick movies, it's clear in this one that TC and NK and Kubrick didn't gel at all.
Eyes Wide is horrid. It’s pretentious and empty, flat and overwrought with hammy acting and one of the worst ending lines in celluloid history. Incredible that the master ended his sensational corpus of films with one of the lousiest ever. I never thought Pollack could act. Scorsese is full of it and is clearly just playing cheerleader for the craft. Cruise and Kidman give two of the most annoying performances I can remember.
I saw it in the theater as a Kubrick fan. Didn't care for it in first watch. Tried again a few years later. Couldn't even finish it.
Translation: What the public said about EVERY Kubrick film when one would come out.
Y'know what's pretentious?
Armchair critics who parrot tired talking points.
@@Stratmanable
I’m a huge Kubrick fan you zombied fleck of cud. The Shining is my all time favorite movie. I’m well aware of the initial reaction to many of his great works. Eyes was different. It genuinely sucked (“a golf ball through a garden hose”) and successive viewings have only reaffirmed and radicalized that estimation. For all the contrived analytics and abortive theories trotted out to rescue Kubrick’s swan song, I still have no idea what it was supposed to communicate other than marriage difficult and super rich are depraved/devious. After school special level ideation. It is vapidity defined.
@@ultimateformulations
Yeah, it’s just irredeemably stupid and, to his credit, Stanley seems to have been keenly aware of this.
@@Stratmanable Wow, very insightful and not the least bit ironic. You must be a very intelligent and creative person! 100% back you up. Just one thing: how, logically, is using an "ad hominem" approach an improvement on the contribution of another person's take?
Keep an eye out for the EWS doc coming out: SK13. Made by the same guy who made Filmworker!
❤😂😂🎉🎉🎉😢😢😮😮😮😅😅
I really enjoy the clips you cut in from movies. Sly! Haha
Glad you enjoy them! They're fun to pull.
To me EWS has never been a true Kubrick film, and even if it were, it would be a sad way to cap off his career. The last undisputed cinematic masterpiece he made was the first half of Full Metal Jacket. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying EWS is hackwork; it looks great, it's technically very accomplished, etc. But it's an extremely weak story, at least when transposed to the modern world (a terrible misjudgment on Kubrick's part), and the two leads are horribly miscast. Tom Cruise is a great movie star, but he's simply not an actor. In every one of his prestige roles, I've never seen the character, just Tom Cruise trying really hard to show how hard he's worked on his technique. For me perhaps the most fundamental issue with EWS is that it asks the viewer to believe that this impossibly beautiful, wealthy, and privileged Manhattan power couple would never before have contemplated the idea of infidelity, and that the very thought is such a shock to the hubby that it sends him on some shambolic late-night dream-quest. This might work in the setting of 19th-century Vienna, but not in cusp-of-the-millennium New York. In real life, of course, a couple like that, in 1999, in NYC, would be going to high-end swanky orgies every week and/or be cheating on each other serially. It was easier to suspend my disbelief for The Shining. Harrison Ford would've been an infinitely better choice for the male lead; he's great at the type of silent acting such a role requires. The only emotion Tom Cruise can convey with his face is intensity; it's all a matter of how much he narrows his eyes. Nicole Kidman wasn't bad, but she wasn't exactly on the same level as, say, Naomi Watts in Mulholland-Drive. If Kidman is remembered in the future for that role, it will be because it was a Kubrick film rather than for her performance.
agreed.
@@hollingsworth_hound
Yup, just a disastrously ill-conceived clunker that mystifies me to this day.
Nicole Kidman wants a slap quite a few times when interviewed - what was he beef with Kubrick? It was Tom who was insulted as his character (but mainly targeting his height - which of course was personal to himself). Nicole maybe didn't like the prolonged $ext scenes, but with the depraved early history that she had, you'd think she'd be used to it.
This two-year-long drama was so arduous and miserable for Cruise, it broke him to the point where he was no longer interested in drama, but dove head-first into the action genre, as these were the most fun for him. The horrible experience is what propelled Cruise into becoming an adrenaline junkie, primarily in his "Mission: Impossible" movies. Not having a say or having any collaboration working with Kubrick is the reason why he has so much creative control on the pictures he has subsequently starred in.
So true. He used to do so many challenging drams from Born on the 4th of July to Magnolia. You can definitely seeing Eyes Wide Shut as a turning point in his life and career.
One of my favorite movies
I love Kubrick's filming style. The stories have a lot of detail and are made to be watched several times. The one movie storyline I absolutely hated was Clockwork Orange. The second movie storyline was Barry Lyndon. With Barry Lyndon, the main character was an a-#ole. In Clockwork Orange, the entire movie was a how-to on nihilism.
The most overestimated movie ever
Eyes Wide Shut is a great film if not a fully realized one. It is a dim, twilight dream world that Kubrick is revealing for us to ultimately open our eyes about the fragility of romantic relationships. People tend to not want to examine, become distracted and lose their central focus & purpose -to stay together!
_London,_ the home of Oasis? I swear, Tom Cruise is such a knob! 🤣🤣🤣
He was trying to relate to the kids 🤣
I think Noel had bought Supernova Heights by then, so it was, strictly speaking, true. Plus, have you ever seen that American's map of the UK where London is the whole of England?
I guess its a better film if your a rich enclosed yuppie, IDK. . . "pretentious" feels like an adequate term for sure. The film does not reach a wide audience. Feels like 1960's to 1970's relationship hangups. A bygone era of sexuality and fear that no longer reaches any modern zeitgeist.
A lot of non-English-language press seemed to like the movie more. I wonder if it's because they didn't know how English conversation is supposed to sound. The dialogue is so stilted. But there are some good scenes particularly with the actresses involved (I think Kubrick took Kidman's more over-the-top takes, which was a mistake on his part, not hers), but come on. Even if you interpret the whole movie as a dream, it still comes off wrong. (At this point the film's defenders would say "That's just because you can't face what it has to say".... haahaha)
I’m fascinated by the film, but completely agree with you about Kidman’s insane performance and the stilted dialogue. It’s just odd. But visually I think this is his most richly symbolic and beautiful film.
@@steveclark3032
It’s defenders never really offer a solid reason for why it should be exonerated. They remind me so much of the heavens gate revisionists who try to find some redeeming attribute to latch onto. Like you said, it always some lame duck grope at a middle earth deep meaning underneath the facade that simply isn’t there. And yes, she is awful and so is Cruise. It simply sucks.
@@Fredo_Viola I do love how it looks, how it's constructed, and the general environment in the film.
@@MaximusWolfe I can't quite get to that level of dislike, there's too many things I still like about it, but... yeah, I'll just say it's got issues haha
@@steveclark3032
Visual splendor does not make a movie decent or even serviceable, it only serves as an adjunct to a great story and script, both of which Eyes sorely lacks. And yes, I truly hate that movie. That possibly the greatest director of all time ended his glorious career so odiously really sticks in my craw.
Great director. Terrible movie.
The movie is clearly not terrible
The movie is clearly not terrible
@@j2248 wasn’t clear to me. Glad you enjoyed it though 😀
@@cheefussmith9380
Yes, a truly inexplicable effort on the part of one of cinemas few true geniuses. I’ll never forget how excited I was to go see it or how despondent I was when I left. I was too young to see any of his other movies in theaters when they came out and I was downright dumbfounded by the irrefutable shittiness I had just witnessed.
@@j2248
It really is though. Many attempts have been made to rescue it through analytical study and nonexistent narrative undercurrents but they all bear out to nothing. The upshot is that it was one of the worst movies of 90’s.
when I first saw it I was not impressed, then 10yrs or so later I totally fell for it. I do think cruise / Kidman were distracting though . . but to me this is a 'Kubrick a la Lynch' film . . . all about the atmosphere, un-answered questions, puzzles we most likely are not meant to have answers to. who knows if he would of re-edited had he not passed. or maybe the 1lum1nat1 took him out 🤷
Yeah and similar atmosphere to The Shining.
Kubrick is always an extreme hit or miss director for me and I'm afraid this one was laughably bad. Whole thing came across as a naive child's view of what adults get up to. It was very, very funny but I don't think intentionally.
I appreciate your take, but isn't the strangeness part of the fun?
The awkward pauses, particularly in the billiard room scene near the end, hobble the film terribly. If Kubrick hadn’t died, he may have taken it back to the editing room to tighten it up after the critical reaction. Sidney Pollock is awful...I’ve heard rumours from people who worked on the film that there’s another reason why Keitel got fired: Kubrick filmed a fantasy scene between him and Kidman where they were getting it on, and something, ahem, came up between them...
Wow. Haven't heard that Keitel rumor before.
Creepy Cruise and his soon to be ex-wife have no chemistry. Kubrick made some great films, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, but this one is a real stinker. Stupid script.
But you have to admit a stinker from Kubrick, is different than a regular stinker. Same goes for Robert Altman.
There have been rumors for years that Kubrik's assistants actually did most of the work on the film. and that he was already suffering from mental impairment even then.
That would make a lot of sense. I believe there's no way this was his final cut.
I just finished reading a lengthy biography on Kubrick. There was no mention of the conversation he supposedly had with R. Lee Ermey which seems like a pretty big omission considering what Kubrick had apparently said about the movie. Not saying it didn’t happen just odd it wasn’t mentioned in the Bio
Also it’s Harford not Hartford
That is odd that the quote wasn't mentioned. Was the biography called "Kubrick: An Odyssey"? Also, you're right, there's definitely there's no "T" in "Harford." Apparently, I really wanted there to be one, haha. Whoops
@@hollywoodvulture yes that was the book
I think it is a masterpiece. I liked it when I saw it with my friends. I was one of the few that liked it. I still like it. In fact, I’d say now I love it.
@@johnheart6890
You need to see more movies.
@@MaximusWolfe thanks for the advice. Which movie d you recommend?
@@johnheart6890
Too many to know where to start. But Eyes Wide Shut is terrible, terrible movie. It really is.
@@MaximusWolfe You can’t even name one film? Not one? Now I am beginning to think that it is you who need to see more films, not me (not a single recommendation comes into your mind, that is rather surprising) Can you at least let me know what specifically makes Eyes Wide Shut horrible in your opinion? Saying it is “terrible, terrible “ without any specific details makes you sound like a kid that doesn’t like broccoli just because it is broccoli. We are getting nowhere fast.
@@johnheart6890
I can name thousands of films. I can name thousands of films better than Eyes Wide. The trouble is where to start since even many terrible films I’ve seen are considerably better. Besides some of the visual aspects everything is bad about Eyes Wide. The script is terrible (unrealistic dialogue and dumb Iines), the acting is histrionic (several scenes feel poorly rehearsed or badly decided), the story and plot arc are stilted, vapid and unrewarding (no one who has seen it fails to wonder at the end why anything happened), the third act is incredibly boring (the last line feels like it could have been penned by a misbehaving 6 year old). Shall I go on? I can’t even understand why it was made. Those of your ilk always feel this obnoxious desire to mine for a redeeming attribute and you can’t. Moreover, the idea that successive viewings salvage the film is ridiculous. It seems more atrocious to me now than than the first time I undertook that drudgery.
I note that the film and trailer are identical for the first minute, giving us the names, the title, and Nicole's derriere.
It was a perfect trailer. Hard to improve on it.
@@hollywoodvulture For the audience expectations, that ticket was redeemed in the first minute. Then on with our movie.
Hey Alejandro, thanks for the new content.
My pleasure!
to narrator: why do you sound like that? Good video tho
to commenter: i have no idea. Good comment tho
Like many convoluted artsy films, it's better on cable where you can wander off if you want (Harvey got fired by Coppola, the greats lol).
This is the only film I don't remember Tom throwing a temper tantrum and storm off kicking the ground. Reminds me of the collin guy that cries in every movie even if nothing bad happens. Toms a casting couch sex toy for old men.
Cruise was great in the last crucial scene with Pollack.
@@ishaq24722
Meh
Maybe it WAS worth the 3 weeks of shooting
Eyes Wide Shut kind of sucks...it's just not that interesting and slow in a bad way.
@@maynardwayward12
Not even kind of. It really stinks the joint up, beginning to end.
Manchester is the home of Oasis… cmon Tom
@@lorcanmacken4882
I know, what a chode expert.
@@lorcanmacken4882
Yup, he’s a gimp
It’s one of his best and the Kubrick answer to the sequel to The Shining. Watch it like a codex.
@@onemysore6120
It’s one of the worst movies of the 90’s that pretentious assholes try to rescue from the scrap heap. It can’t hold a candle to Shining or any of his other films.
Marie Richardson is Swedish though,
She certainly is. Not sure where I got French from. Thanks for the correction!
Far & Away is actually a more enjoyable cinematic experience lel
@@timtrek
You’re right
I liked the little clips you put in between, though there were maybe a bit too many 😉Great video though!
Thank you for watching! (insert clip of Tom Cruise glaring at you intensely)
What is the deal with every UA-camr using the fake film grain all of a sudden? Knock it off guys.
Entitled to your opinion but I love it. It's a widely used technique that's been utilized for the last 20 years with the rise of digital editing in both movies and TV. The mainstream news media and documentary filmmakers use it frequently. Way back in 2010, the iconic reality show Jersey Shore even added it to certain shots to add visual variety. It's like a painter adding texture to a solid color background. When the subject is a film that was shot on film, as is the case with 'Eyes Wide Shut,' it's even more appropriate.