comment #1

George Prager says ...

It's the WATCHMEN of Kubrick films.

comment #2

DarthCorleone says ...

Although I disagree with your critique of Eyes Wide Shut, I do agree that this is a very good piece.

comment #3

Bilge says ...

Given the degree to which EWS's reputation has improved since its release, I find it somewhat lazy that you'd just regurgitate your comments from 9 years ago. If you're that fond of Kubrick's works, then show him the common courtesy to print something new instead of just reprinting something called, amazingly, "Stanley Was Slippin'".

Feel free to hate on any or all of his films. but this exercise seems vaguely pointless to me.

comment #4

George Prager says ...

This NY TImes magazine piece is worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990704mag-kubrick-profile.html

Overkill.

comment #5

MilkMan says ...

Look at dat ass! Marone! (I'm trying to "do" a paisan. Is that how you spell "marone?") But seriously, Kidman is a goddess in EWS.
One of the great opening shots in cinema.

And to some of you who don't like the movie or Kubrick, I feel sorry for you. Truly. I also don't envy you. There is so much to learn and get out of both.

comment #6

actionman says ...

Nicely written piece, Wells.

But Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece.

comment #7

astrophore says ...

I loved EWS when it came out, and my admiration has only grown. Kubrick embedded a complicated take on marriage and fidelity and the complexity of human relationships within a movie that appeared to be, at some level, an erotic thriller.

The interplay between reality and dreams also fascinates me, especially given the prominence of this dynamic in the source material. Movies, because they are closest to the dream state, rarely represent dreams very well. This one does. Even the ersatz Manhattan plays into this -- it always looks "off".

And I enjoy Cruise's stiff, ironic performance. That blank, mannered affect masks a torrent of conflicted sexual feelings. Kubrick used the acting limitations of Ryan O'Neal to similar success in Barry Lyndon.

Finally, I just don't buy the reductive Kubrick-was-a-recluse criticism. He certainly left America, but by all accounts, he had a circle of close family and friends in merry old England, and he entertained visitors, discussed current events, embraced culture, walked his dog, and did altogether humanoid things.

I think some artists require being "of the people" and eating hot dogs at baseball games, and some artists do not.

comment #8

MilkMan says ...

I'm sorry. That came across totally condescending. I'm trying to stop.

I agree with actionman, though. EWS is another masterpiece in a long line of Kubrick masterpieces. I think I know why so many of his films were masterpieces. Because he was a master filmmaker. When people don't agree with that I kind of get all quizzical inside. Especially when it comes from someone who loves movies.

comment #9

astrophore says ...

And holy jesus does Kidman look great in this movie.

comment #10

actionman says ...

MilkMan and Actionman in complete agreement with each other. What's next? Dogs and cats, living together...mass hysteria!

comment #11

actionman says ...

The overall amount of PERFECT FEMALE ASSES in Eyes Wide Shut is staggering. Imagine those casting calls/auditions...

comment #12

dinther says ...

I had heard so much negative reaction to Eyes Wide Shut that I didn't see it when it was released in theatres. Big mistake. It has grown on me with each viewing.

It certainly does create its own world. It may not be a world of "flesh and blood" but I think that is, in large part, the point. The pristine, soul-less enclave that the Cruise-Kidman characters inhabit seems devoid of warmth. There is sex, but it is distant. There are masks everywhere. There is a fantastic sense of isolation in the film, the kind which hangs in the air in cities that long ago abandoned traditional ethos of family, loyalty, and virtue for its own sake. Of course, big cities are not like this at all, but Kubrick created an alternative universe that was both other-worldly and authentic.

Like other great artists, Kubrick's films suffered by his own reputation. If Eyes Wide Shut were made by a relatively unknown director, it would have been celebrated as visionary and disturbing. But because Kubrick made it, it carries the baggage of others' expectations.

comment #13

George Prager says ...

EWS is interesting because it is about a fanboy type who finally grows up (after having an adventure that only a fanboy could have).

comment #14

sumo-pop says ...

I am a die hard defender of Eyes. I think that Kubrick abused Cruise into giving a really vulnerable performance in what may be his only "reactive" role. And I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of Kidman. After To Die For and The Hours it's her best. Eyes isn't perfect but it's hard to think of another film that's in any way similar in tone and personality.

comment #15

bdboudreaux says ...

EWS, like all of Kubrick's films, has aged like a fine wine. I loved it when it came out, even though in a lot of ways I wasn't sure why. I've seen it a dozen time since and every time, and I really mean every single fucking time, I watch it it evolves for me. I also think that when I first saw it I had only been married for six months, now it's been ten years and the intricacies of marriage, as well as physical and emotional trappings of the outside world mean more to me. Honestly this movie is more realistic about what it means to be with someone for a long period of time than any boiler plate romantic "On Golden Pond" type of film.

Oh and the death of Kubrick, I can still remember the shock when I came home from work, having edited all night for the first time, and my wife sitting me down to tell me that the man who I worshipped as a god was no more. It still feels weird.

comment #16

va says ...

nice try on the Italian MilkMan....but it is Madonn' - short for Madonna, or "mother of God" - which is exactly what I thought - as long as NK has that ass, she doesn't need botox!

comment #17

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

dinther - And I think the opposite is true; had some unknown made it there would be none of this discussion. I think people look for meaning in EWS where there is none, projecting much onto a neutral screen mostly because if Kubrick shot it, it must mean something, right?

Could have been worse, however. Paul Shrader could have directed and then you'd really see a bloodless movie about sex...

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

Kidman is incredible in Birth. And Dogville, too. I never got her appeal until she dropped that dress at the beginning of EWS, and since then it's been love. Not as quite as intense as David Thomson's love, but love nonetheless. I mean, how cute is she in Bewitched? Shit movie, though.

And what Kubrick did to Cruise and Kidman during the filming of EWS is classic. He really did psychologically abuse Cruise. Reading Thomson's book, you get the feeeling that Kubrick was madly in love with Kidman and thought Cruise was a tool.

comment #19

MilkMan says ...

I was just looking at that glorious still above, and I'm thinking to myself, how could you not love a director who knows how to place shoes and a tennis racket like that. That kind of attention to detail is underestimated in my opinion. That is the mark of someone who cares. Kubrick cared.

comment #20

Chase Kahn says ...

One of my biggest complaints that bothers me everytime I see it is the artificiality of "New York" -- it becomes more distractingly obvious every time I see it that it was shot in London.

comment #21

JT says ...

"Kubrick apparently did very little of this. The more invested he became in his secretive, secluded, every-detail-controlled, nothing-left-to-chance lifestyle in England -- which he began to construct when he left Hollywood and moved there in the early '60s -- and the less familiar he became with the rude hustle-bustle of life on the outside, the more rigid and formalized and apart-from-life his films became.

Funny how Jeff didn't do a new edit of the piece, since we all know now that SK was anything but a control freak. He wasa loving father and husband who was a fmaily man with a wide range of friends. Yes, he controlled his films, what great directior doesn't?

Is EWS perfect? No. But it doesn't matter. It's a classic, not only for Kidman's beauty (yes, she WAS at her peak of beauty here) but also for it's nightmarish vision of married sexuality. I'm amazed that no one has mentioned how funny the pic is, especially the nods to Cruise's supposed homosexuality (check out some of what Alan Cummings has said about his scene).

Let's not forget how wonderfully jerky Sydney Pollack is in it. Love him in this.

No, Wells. If anything, you should've viewed the pic again to reconsider it.

"Life goes on. Until it doesn't."

comment #22

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Amen, Milkman.

I came here to defend EWS as a masterpiece (admittedly a minor one for Stanley), but it looks like this job has already been done pretty well for me.

I will also submit this query (to everyone, but especially Wells): how many equivalently masterful films can you name where the director was as old as SK was during EWS (70 years old)?

I came up with a handful: Akira Kurosawa (Ran; 75), Ingmar Bergman (Fanny & Alexander, 75), John Huston (Prizzi's Honor, 79), Sidney Lumet (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, 83!!). Also, Woody Allen has made a few candidates in the last couple years, I think...I'll take his most recent entry (Vicky Cristina Barcelona, 73).

So, I think good ol' Stan is in pretty good company here. Just for the record, I'll take EWS over any of these, but I know that much is certainly arguable.

My point: Stanley was not slippin'.

comment #23

Chase Kahn says ...

By the way, when was the first time that the orgy scene became readily available on DVD without the CG-cover-up? I've never seen the original version.

comment #24

Chase Kahn says ...

Your point is well taken, CitizenKaned, but don't lump 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' with 'Ran' and 'Fanny and Alexander'...

comment #25

JT says ...

CK: i tink it was the first time the film was the unrated version and was widely available in the USA. I think it had been projected and available in Europe for years. I rmeember that you could DL the original clips of on different P2P clients before it was made available her on DVD.

comment #26

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Chase - That's fine, feel free to substitute Match Point or Cassandra's Dream, according to taste...or don't. I feel this latter-day Woody Renaissance deserves a mention among those films, even if it isn't quite as good.

He's done some of the best work in his career in the past five years. That's significant to me.

comment #27

lawnorder says ...

I always thought the problem with EWS is that it should have been a period piece. Kubrick should have stayed true to the time period of the original story.

comment #28

JT says ...

CKfCG: Being a HUGE woody fan, I feel that VCB is his best film since S&L in '99. IMO, he didn't makea good film between the two, both MP and CD were almost embarassingly bland. He was dloundering for almost a decade, but VCB was even better than any praise it got. I saw it a few weeks ago on a screener and throughout the pic, I waswaiting for it to suck and it never did. A classic.

comment #29

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

JT - There ya go.

You'll rarely find someone that thinks VCB, MP, and CD were all masterpieces, but generally if you throw them all together, a film buff will almost inevitably find one out of those three fits that particular bill for them.

comment #30

EnglishBob says ...

You'd think that if a perfectionist like Kubrick really wanted his movie to look like it was set in New York City, he'd get over himself, hop on a plane and shoot the damn thing on location!

EWS is OK, but the phony NYC sets are really hard to get past. I mean, 'Seinfeld' managed to better capture the essence of the city!

comment #31

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Ah, but who says Kubrick was trying to capture a realistic version of NYC in EWS?

comment #32

JT says ...

I always have assumed that EWS, so much of it about the fantasy lives we all lead, showed a fantastical NYC, and was menat to be more dreamlike than real. Come on, SK was a born New Yorker. Do you really think he would not got for aunthenticity if that'd been his aim? Please see every other film he's ever made for clarification.

comment #33

DarthCorleone says ...

Well said, Citizen & JT. This New York quibble seems like a personal hangup.

comment #34

EnglishBob says ...

Well, I watched a Kubrick documentary recently about all his archives and the boxes and boxes of research notes and photos he sent his minions out to get. Judging from the effort expended, it certainly seems that he was looking to capture an authentic NYC for the movie. If he wasn't, why be so meticulous on the sets? I mean, Kubrick was the kind of guy who wanted the return addresses on envelopes in the deep background of a scene to be exact. That level of detail is somewhat obsessive, in my opinion. To do all that prep work and then wind up with one of the phoniest New Yorks ever....well, maybe it wasn't accidental. I don't know. It just seems there's a disconnect between such a perfectionist director and the final product. Maybe he really WAS out of touch, yes? Or maybe it was all part of his vision. Oh well. My head hurts.

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Bob,

I think he was just the kind of director that wanted to do meticulous research on things that wouldn't even end up onscreen. He just wanted to know everything. This is probably part of the reason why the gaps between his films became interminably long. This is part of the price one pays for having such an obsessive personality.

Frederic Raphael, who adapted Schnitzler's Traumnovelle for EWS, wrote a pretty interesting book on working with Stanley called Eyes Wide Open, which doubled as a memoir when SK died unexpectedly months before it was published.

In it, he transcribes (or more likely, paraphrases) a lot of their late night telephone calls in which Kube reveals his meticulous researching of NYC locations, and how he wanted the production design of his London sets to mirror these real locations in an eerie, doppelganger sort of way.

Your charge of him being "out of touch" is a strange one. This is a man who directed a movie with no discernable dialogue until 30 minutes in, a black comedy on war in 1964, a picture about James Mason's obsession with a 14 year-old nymphette, and Barry Lyndon smack in the middle of the 70s, when everyone else seemed to be making the gritty crime flicks like the ones he had made 20 years previously.

In a sense, he had always been "out of touch"...I'd argue that's a (small) part of what made him such a landmark artist.

comment #36

mutinyco says ...

The Leon Vitali interview from '07: http://mutinycompany.com/article_leonvitali.html

comment #37

lipranzer says ...

Count me in with the "EYES WIDE SHUT is a masterpiece" crowd. And yes, New York City is somewhat artificial because this is the "dream world" Kubrick is trying to replicate from Schnitzler's story. And how great was it for Kubrick to use Cruise the way he did, playing off his image (not only with characters from Vinessa Shaw to Alan Cumming to Leelee Sobieski coming on to him, but also, for example, the teens threatening him as a way of playing off the gay rumors that have persistently surrounded Cruise). And, of course, one of the best curtain lines in the history of cinema.

I do admit, however, being curious as to how it might have turned out had Harvey Keitel and Jennifer Jason Leigh stayed on in the film.

comment #38

Josh Massey says ...

In 33 years on this planet, I've never had a theatrical experience to rival Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick took an ice cream scoop to my chest, starting 30 seconds in and not stopping until the credits rolled.

comment #39

Gordon27 says ...

"how many equivalently masterful films can you name where the director was as old as SK was during EWS (70 years old)?"

Robert Altman made his last six films after 70, and 'Gosford Park' is great (I'd also submit 'Cookie's Fortune').

Clint Eastwood is 78 now, so count backwards; like Woody Allen, he's got to have one movie in there you love.

Coppola turns 70 this year; let's see what he can pull off next.

comment #40

Gordon27 says ...

Oh, and I liked 'Eyes Wide Shut' a lot when I saw it the first two times (opening day and the next day), but it's the only Kubrick movie that has diminished for me the more familiar with it I get. There's a lot of stuff in it that feels deep and mysterious when you see it the first time, but then you realize there genuinely are no answers presented, and that's the point, but it makes it a lot less interesting. It's not a bad movie, but most of his movies have grown deeper for me as I've grown up, whereas that one has just grown longer.

comment #41

MilkMan says ...

'...an ice cream scoop to the chest...'

'you must be kidding, right'?

'I don't think he is...'

comment #42

MilkMan says ...

...'this picture of kidman standing naked in a dress puddle is mesmerizing...'
'...it is the sexiest picture I have ever seen...'
...'Kubrick was sexy. No one ever talks about him like that...'
...looking at Kidman's big, beautiful ass for a few seconds is all the sexiness he gives you and all he needs to give you...'
'...the rest is an exploration about what it means to be a wealthy, semi-connected white man and woman at the end of the century...'
'...that's all it's about...'

comment #43

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Good ones, Gordon...don't know how Gosford Park slipped my mind.

I'm not sure what an" ice cream scoop to the chest" is, exactly, but I just called a hooker and she said it would be an extra $50/hour to try it.

comment #44

AndrewOwens says ...

I'm with Jeff on this one - it's a misfire, or more accurately, unfinished. Kubrick always edited his films down to the wire, and in the case of 2001 and The Shining, continued editing them after release. I just don't buy that he was completely done with the film 4 months before release (when he died), and all of the CGI insert stuff (although it did not affect the UK release) screamed of studio interference, or some kind of interference. I just find it dramatically inert and utterly implausible - which is weird as plausibility is what makes his other films so compelling.

Kidman is a vision, though.

comment #45

JT says ...

And yet, everything ever written says how SK was finished with the edit on EWS before his death. He had even screened it a couple of times. I don't know the specifics of whether he was for the CG inserts to block the sex or not ( i'm sure that SK, like most filmmakers, would be against them), naturally)but he WAS obligated to bring the film in as an R, not unrated or an NC17.

comment #46

mutinyco says ...

1) EWS is not his final cut. He needed to show it to Tom and Nicole because of contractual nudity clauses. That's why it was screened.

2) That said, the released movie was his final cut -- simply because he died. The picture edit was left unchanged at his death, but other finishing touches such as music cues, ADR, sound mix and color timing were done after.

3) Yes, he was contractually obligated to deliver an R. If he had lived, all he'd have had to do was adjust the editing slightly in the orgy scene so we see more of Dr. Bill and less of the sex acts. The digital "fig leaves" were added so as not to alter Kubrick's edit of the picture.

comment #47

AndrewOwens says ...

I guess I can't make excuses for him then - the film's just plain awful. I love and have rewatched many times all his other stuff (except the pre The Killing stuff, which I've never seen) but just cannot get the ice cream scoop into my chest for this film. Jeff is so on the money about the "score" as well - someone shoot the piano player, or piano thumper, in this case.

comment #48

Gaydos says ...

Directors over 70 making terrific films? Please note Olmi and Resnais. Olmi's "Singing Behind Screens" is genius and his "One Hundred Nails" close behind. Neither available on DVD here. And Manoel de Oliveira is working away at 101. And while we are on the subject of Stanley, Monte Hellman was over 70 when he made the terif "Stanley's Girlfriend" which screened in Cannes in 2006 and is part of the "Trapped Ashes" omnibus film. It's the "true" story of Kubrick's aversion to the outside world.

comment #49

Edward says ...

Late to the discussion again. Excellent by the way. I found EWS to be fascinating; maybe not the greatest Kubrick, but close to a masterpiece in a career of masterpieces. I need to see it again. Kubrick's films all deserve multiple viewings. The only Kubrick film I've seen multiple times and still don't care for is The Shining, but I also have issues with the novel.

comment #50

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Wow. I can't believe I forgot Bunuel, either. Made three classic films at the end of his life that were arguably the strongest of his career; talk about going out on a hot streak!

Anyone want to nominate Godard here? I love the guy, but I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I'm pretty clueless about the majority of his post-1970s work. Is it even watchable, let alone "classic?"

comment #51

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Used to like The Shining quite a bit less than SK's other work (that's about as close as I ever got to "disliking" anything he's done) until I read an essay about how the film was filled with visual cues/metaphors for Indian persecution. Quite a bit of that stuff was right there in the sides and corners of the frame, I just totally missed it.

So now I suppose I'm only left with Spartacus to be slightly disappointed with -- and even that fundamentally works as a movie (even if it is a bit bloated and talky).

I can't even work up any bile for his early stuff like Fear and Desire or Killer's Kiss. Considering his budgets and overall lack of experience, I just consider them some of the best student films ever made; there is a ton of maturation and growth between each one, and they're never boring.

Plus, he weaved snippets of his boxing documentary Day of the Fight into Killer's Kiss by writing in a scene where the main character watches a ringside event. How fucking brilliant & efficient is that?

comment #52

prairie_oysters says ...

I have to say that I disagree entirely with your piece on Eyes Wide Shut. I hate to disappoint you but your observations on the film, eloquent though they are, are identical to 99% of all the naysayers who've ever taken it to task.

Far from illustrating that he was out of touch with the modern mores and morals of contemporary society Kubrick simply stuck to his conviction that despite the trappings, language and technology of our modern age, men and women and the way in which they treat each other are the same as they ever were. It's an unashamedly male film. I dare say that at his age Kubrick didn't care who liked or disliked him or his film for being about a selfishly male viewpoint. I believe it to be extremely honest in that respect.
It's also one of the best representations on screen of a drug experience. The novella it was based on (and it hones incredibly closely to the book) was called 'Dream Novel' and the events of the film are a perfect exploration of an oneiric narrative. Every woman Dr Bill encounters (and at least one of the men) proposition him sexually or appear as idealised sex objects and yet he is constantly confounded in his desire for or pontificates his way out of extra marital sex. He has a 'magic wallet' containing an endless supply of cash and medical credentials which gain him access to everything and everywhere which would otherwise be a narrative hurdle, etc, etc.
And all this takes place AFTER he smokes a joint - one of the few major departures from the novel - every event subsequent to the pot is in some way a 'waking dream'.

Anyway, people will argue the toss over whether Kubricks swansong is a masterpiece or a clinker forever. One thing's for sure, nobody ever changed their mind over a film thanks to a well worded argument.

comment #53

Michael says ...

I think EWS has one of the worst final scenes of any movie I've ever seen. I was embarrassed for everyone involved in it.

comment #54

TVMCCA says ...

I would offer that the scenes of Kane and Susan in Xanadu from CITIZEN KANE are greater masterworks of film-as-art than the mostly-arid entitety of EYES WIDE SHUT.

comment #55

vansmith says ...

EWS was an old guy's attempt at eroticism and the only way he could do it was with a big star and he got 2. Dig the contours on Nicole, the length of the leg, how the ass doesnt flay out to the sides but is packed in just so...

comment #56

jamesD says ...

I strongly suggest you guys a H - O T site for tall chix and guys-- ____Tall kiss C om ____ Im sure it will work for-- you. End your loney life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

comment #57

DavidF says ...

I know I'm way late but:

-I don't love EWS but I don't think it's a total mess. I do think if someone other than Kubrick directed it would be considered, say, a reason to take notice of a director, but not a classic.

-People seem to revere every frame of Kubrick's work as pure genius but it is, IMHO, almost always flawed, there is great - even transcendent stuff, in The Shining, FMJ and EWS, but neither is an entirely successful film. You can blame it on his "coldness" or his attempt to create a real world on a set (ie his refusal to go location) or his technique. I like all 3 movies, but I don't think any is the classic they are made out to be and any of us could point out a couple of small things that would have each of those movies "better."

-I don't buy the "what if Kubrick wasn't trying to really create New York?" thing at all. The reality is he didn't like flying and he used his resources to "hide" that fact. One could just as easily ask "What if he wasn't really trying to show Vietnam in FMJ?" Of course he was.
When someone goes to so much effort to make outer space look real, you know he cares about every detail.
His refusal to travel, IMHO, creates a major visual flaw in FMJ (it does look great for a Vietnam film shot in London, but it doesn't look like Asia) and in EWS.

-As a Canadian, I still find it amusing you guys got the censored version. How sad.

comment #58

mutinyco says ...

1) EWS is not a mess. It wasn't what would've been a final cut, but everything is exact. The movie was in production for nearly two years and had over 300 actual shooting days -- 3x what's normally considered a long shoot. Kubrick spent 7 weeks shooting the orgy sequence alone. He also reshot Jennifer Jason Leigh's scene and recast her role when she was unavailable. As Pollack said, he just wouldn't give an inch. Now, with that in mind...

2) People revere every frame of Kubrick because every frame is completely conscious. He had more autonomy over his pictures -- every single aspect -- than any other director. He shot what he wanted, shot for as long as he wanted, controlled marketing, even chose what theaters his movies played at. COMPLETE AUTONOMY. All of his films, furthermore, are art films, no matter how large the scale. They don't play by the rules of traditional commercial filmmaking, and he didn't rely on standard film form. Each movie was a new concept, and he figured it out as he was shooting, both shot-wise and dramatically -- no storyboards, no polished studio slickness.

3) Kubrick wasn't trying to create a real NYC. I would point to the ridiculous blue lights on the fake sets outside the windows scene after scene. I don't think FMJ was intended to be a completely accurate portrait of Vietnam either -- it was a movie about modern warfare, and could just as easily take place in Iraq. It's a stylized film, not an attempt at reality -- as were all his films. Getting the details right does not mean getting reality right -- for EWS, he shot as many location reference photos throughout London as he did in NYC.

comment #59

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks Kubrick intended to portray a realistic version of NYC really misses the entire point of EWS...

Like I said before, he may very well be "out of touch," but he's always been a stickler for details and I'll be goddamned if the lucid quality of the set design wasn't entirely a conscious decision on his part.

comment #60

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"His refusal to travel, IMHO, creates a major visual flaw in FMJ (it does look great for a Vietnam film shot in London, but it doesn't look like Asia) and in EWS."

While I agree with mutinyco that all his films are highly stylized, I don't think it's fair to say the scenes in FMJ "didn't look like Asia." He assumed (and rightly so by 1987) that audiences were kind of "jungled out" when it came to portraying the Vietnam War onscreen, so he decided to concentrate on the urban warfare portion of the conflict instead.

Yes, this form of combat was rare in Asia, but if you look at any photos from some of the skirmishes in the bigger Vietnamese cities (like Hue City), the charge that FMJ "doesn't look like Asia" doesn't really hold its water.

comment #61

mutinyco says ...

And FMJ's combat is centered around the Tet Offensive, probably the most famous engagement of the war. And Tet was largely fought in urban settings like Hue and Khe Sahn.

comment #62

BurmaShave says ...

"The babysitter calling Cruise and Kidman 'Mr. Harford' and 'Mrs. Harford.' If there is one teenaged Manhattan babysitter who has ever expressed herself like a finishing school graduate of 1952 and addressed a modern Manhattan couple in their early 30s as 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.,' I will eat the throw rug in Dave Poland's apartment.

"The trite cliches that constitute 85% of Tom Cruise's dialogue. The agonizingly stilted delivery that Nicole Kidman gives to her lines in the sequence in which she's smoking pot and arguing with Cruise in their bedroom. That absolutely hateful piano chord that keeps banging away in Act Three."

I was 17 when you wrote this, but even then I might have taken issue with you being turned off by the babysitter issue, which is simply untrue (especially when it's often immigrants), Nicole Kidman's best performance, and one of the more effective film scores of all time. Silly.