you aren’t serious are you/ a kubrick directed, jack nicholson film vs a made for tv movie with the guy form wings? obviously the jack version is the best, regardless of how true it is to the book…
The Kubrick one. No contest. The Kubrick version is great on all fronts (acting, sets, visuals, editing, score, and so on). I really love how that movie was filmed.
thank you!!! god, do you know how many people i hear talk up that film like it was anything more than a HORRIBLE last feature from an otherwise brilliant director…
Eyes Wide Shut is one of my favorite Kubrick films. I think it’s at least as good as The Shining and the non-Paris Island stuff in Full Metal Jacket.
ne0phyte and I checked out Doubt yesterday. I thought it was great, while her enthusiasm is a little more tempered. Great performances from PSH, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Viola (I forget her last name at the moment, but the one scene she’s in is fucking fire). And I like the way it lives up to its name by refusing to give a final answer.
you know, i speed read, so sometimes i miss shit. the first time i read that, i missed the “non-paris island” part of that and almost ranted. ok, i’ll give you that everything after pyle blows his brains out was not up to the quality of everything before that, but the shining?! ok, i know it’s no where near the sheer genius of 2001 or clockwork orange, but c’mon, it was way better than eyes wide shut. listen, you cast other people in eyes wide shut, maybe it becomes a taste more enjoyable, but the performances alone between these two films is not even comparable. jack > everyone in eyes wide shut. i did think lele sobieski(sp?) did a good job, but she was a very small part of that mess. also, the visuals and audio of the shining was much better. the scene where danny is riding the big wheel, and you get that great repetition of the wheels riding over carpet then wood then carpet…
eyes wide shut was an incomplete film with some bad choices in casting. tom cruise was horrific in that movie. i dunno, i just really hated that movie. i am a huge kubrick fan, and that movie is a very bad mark on an otherwise nigh perfect career…lolita would be another not-so-grande flick from him, however, i blame that purely on the censorship of the time. i believe if kubrick had the censors of today, he could have been more true to the source material…
LOL angrylib is just hating on tom cruise:rofl: who by the way has a very respectable resume as an actor.
I remember reading kubrick saying eyes wide shut is best movie:confused: I liked it and it only gets better with time but seriously wtf was he trippin on when he said that?
respectable = lots of movies? cuz he doesn’t have a shitload of good movies in his resume, and almost no good performances. he’s a marketable face and name, that’s it. the only time i ever enjoyed tom cruise in a movie was tropic thunder, and that isn’t a performance that’s going to stick. it was just fun to see him play that type of character.
compare tom in any of his films to jack in the shining, which is far from his best performance. there just isn’t a comparison at all.
yeah, i hate tom cruise. not because of his “religion” or his public persona. not because he’s popular. not because he’s obviously insane. because he cannot act and watching him in a movie is actually painful. that’s why i hate him…
It’s pretty good but could have been a lot better. Basically pitt tries a little too hard to be all serious as if his entire life depended on this film but it’s a good step in the right direction away from his usual “cocky jokster guy” role that he’s usually cast in.
Risky, money, july, jerry, report, and especially collateral are all good examples that he’s got acting chops and to not acknowledge that in my mind you’re just a straightup hater not being able to separate an actors talent from his personal life.
That being said outside of collateral none of his performances have ever been that strong or evocative of anything especially significant but as a decent actor he fulfills most of his roles satisfactorily.
actually, i don’t give a shit about people’s personal life. i don’t care if he’s crazy, as i actually said in the post you fucking quoted, i don’t care if he’s a fucking scientologist (also mentioned in the previously referenced quote), all i know is that everytime i see him in a movie, i want to throw something at his little midget head. he’s horrible. also, no mention of magnolia? everyone praises him for that…
there is nothing satisfactory about his acting. if that is what you consider satisfactory, you need to surround yourself with quality acting performances. de niro in raging bull, pacino in dog day afternoon, gregory peck in to kill a mockingbird, fuck, even robin williams in the fisher king. i actually don’t like robin williams as an actor at all. he’s funny in a spastic way, but i wasn’t blown away like others by most his “dramatic” performances. however, he is downright brilliant in the fisher king. i do, however, attribute this more to his director than him…
I forgot oh forgive me Paul thomas anderson I’ll watch boogie nights 10 times and eternally ask for forgiveness:sad:
Angrylib obviously I noticed how you said you didn’t give a fuck about that other stuff I was simply implying that although you directly state your view on him as a person has nothing to do with your opinion of him as an actor your post imo kinda of looks like it does.
Yes, I consider his performances in those films satisfactory and it sounds like you don’t know the meaning of the word because you seem to think me thinking tom cruise as 6/10 means I can’t recognize true quality acting? To say any of those guys performances especially pacino in raging bull (*cough scorses’s best film) is satisfactory is a straightup insult.
So many awesome movies I haven’t seen looks like I’m going to watch the wrestler and another film yet to be decided on by my friends on the same day this weekend.
Scorsese edit: The king of comedy is very underrated.