johnnysd

700 times?? Holy exaggeration factor Batman!

al_bundy

if people didn't like EWS then it's Kubrick's fault

he makes some good movies but they are all long, drawn out, almost boring for most of the time with an OK climax and some deep meaning that most people don't care about.

one reason why it wasn't that popular was that it didn't capture any period in history like his other movies did.

Dr. Strangelove - cold war and the nonsense of having so many weapons

full metal jacket - vietnam

Spartacus - good story people can identify with

2001 - space race and the start of computer technology as well as the creep of other forms of automation into our lives

clockwork orange - answer to liberalism's attack on capital punishment and people's fear of increasing crime rates

EWS - sex parties in NYC aren't a big deal. can't think of one issue to tie it to

runnersdialzero

Are you nuts? 1999 was one of the better years in recent film history. No classics? The ones you named off were great films in my mind. Don't forget about American Beauty, The Green Mile, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Sixth Sense, Boys Don't Cry, Being John Malkovich, Toy Story 2, Election.

As far as the Kubrick thing goes, I smell BS as well. I don't see Kubrick backing down to anyone, not even Tom and Nicole. And Kubrick didn't have to work with them. He had his pick of any couple he wanted to work with. He knew what he was getting in to.

Saxon

james2025a

Well leaving EWS alone and looking at Kubrick i agree that the man fought for what he believed in. However it is clearly evident that when it came to big name actors he knew when to handle them with kid gloves. Sure he gave Kirk Douglas a lot of shit in both Paths of Glory and Spartacus, however for Spartacus the original director had been fired and Douglas tried getting someone that he thought he could manipulate. He had not had an easy time with Kubrick on Paths of Glory, and for Spartacus Kubrick new he had Douglas over a barrel. They were behind schedule and they needed someone to get the job done, and done well. It didn't help that Kubrick had the backing of the other main stars of the movie (Laughton, Olivier and Ustinov). Douglas alientated himself from these other actors and he had to grin and bear it through all the production. Kubrick managed to get away with it whilst making this film because he was incredibly intelligent and knew that he could. Also the fact that Kubrick was signed with Bryna productions (Douglas production house) for a number of pictures mean't that the worst that could happen is that Douglas could end his contract...something Kubrick clearly wanted. When he was setting up a deal for Lolita he set it up outside Bryna because he knew that the scandal the book had created could generate big box office.

There are other times however where it is evident that Kubrick backed down in order to try and move forward. Reading about the meetings that took place between Brando and Kubrick for preparation on One Eyed jacks it is clear that he realized the status and power that Brando had at the time. Making a movie with this actor was the ticket to propelling yourself to A-list director status immediately. No one would pass up that opportunity by proving to be difficult with their main star. I can imagine that Kubrick allowed Cruise and Kidman a great deal of room when it came to excercising there star power. As i mentioned, and it is clear reading from texts on Kubrick that the man was a perfectionist, however he always wanted to his films to make lots of money. One of his best friends was Steven Speilberg and there seemed to be friendly rivalry between the two. One was a perfectionist who made amazing films that were not considered blockbusters on the whole, the other the worlds most successful director at the box office. Each wanted what the other had. So with EWS Kubrick had a chance to acheive both the critical accalim and the box office results by having a very famous husband and wife acting couple starring in his film. He probably didn't want to dmabage the chances for the movie.

At the same time getting back to the original point made for this thread, i don't think anything really holds water. I don't think Kidman/Cruise were to blame. I don't think Kubrick was to blame. I think it was one of those instances where every single aspect seemed right but in the end the whole package just didn't work.

james2025a

Well with the exception of Being John Malkovich i don't think any of the films you mentioned are classics. Good films...sure some of them are...but classics....not IMO.

Let me ask one thing...why would R. Lee Emery say something like this if it is a lie? Some of you might say because he has a film coming out (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The beginning) to promote, but i don't think so. the guy seems to be somone who doesn't bullshit about this sort of thing. What reason has he to lie??? Maybe at the end of the day this is just a case of the press manipulating comments made into something thats just not true. Cruise has certainly had a bashing over the past year.

saoirse

Did they ever come out an un-edited version of the film on DVD here?

james2025a

Not an exaggeration at all. When i intially saw the film was i was 11 years old i thought it was the best movie i had ever seen (and still do). Through my school years i watched the film every single day for over two years. After that it went down to a couple of times a week. The older i get the less i have revisited it as there are more movies i enjoy watching along with it. These days i watch it at least once a month. I am now 32. I have collected a lot of memerobilia for the movie and own one of the actual shooting scripts used on set.

I think the only people that have seen the movie more than me are maybe Marsha Nakashima and Ridley Scott in editing.

So you are "Holy" wrong by saying i am exaggerting.

Nesbit

Could you please explain your reference? Not a big Douglas or Kubrick fan.

james2025a

Well Kubrick never actually told Douglas to go take a flying fuck. He is refering to the rocky relationship the two men had whilst making Paths of Glory and Spartacus. Kubrick was under contract at Bryna productions which was owned by Douglas and Kubrick felt exploited and wanted to get out of it. The two men had very different views on making a film. Kubrick always wanted to make a masterpiece whislt Douglas was always an egotistical star who wanted to come out of every movie looking good. Read his autobiography (The Rags Man Son) and you can see what a prick he was. In his opinion he was the best actor, lover, fighter....basically anything. It was a shame reading the book to me because i have always liked a lot of his movies. So it just boils down to bad blood between the two men. Even after this though there is clear evidence that Douglas acknowledged and respect Kubrick for the genius he was. Whilst being interviewed on the BBC chat show Parkinson in the early 80s he called Kubrick a "Talented shit." And thats a direct quote.

johnnysd

OK. I cannot imagine watching a movie that many times, but I guess you did. Which version do you prefer?

Iron_Giant

A really bad movie cannot be changed by a few ideas from the actors. The subject of the movie was so BAD nothing could have made it succed in the USA.

A friend of mine went to see it and said it was so depressing that he warned me NOT to go see it (and most of the reviews said the same thing), now he wished he had never seen it.

Fincher Fan

I just read the original interview where Ermey also bags Fincher so fuck him.

james2025a

Well i have had several different version of the film over the year and my favourite was the uncut European release (which i believe is prety much the same as the uncut International). It had the extra violence (Pris being shot by Deckard a third time, showing Batty squeezing eyes into Tyrells head, more detail on the nail through Batty's hand), plus it also had the voice over and happy ending. I always liked the voice over and didn't mind the happy ending. I think they are releasing this as part of the box set next year. It would be great if they could also include some of the other footage that was cut (more of the chase with Zhora, Deckard visiting Holden in hospital).

Jackson_Browne

Magnolia alone makes 1999 a great year in movies. But just to repeat what so many others have said, 1999 probably the best year for film in recent memory.

Peep

If your viewing estimates are correct, you'e seen it well over 800 times.

Derrich

EWS does get better the more times you see it. The first time, it's a mess because it seems to go nowhere. And while Kidman has one of the best monoloques ever, its wasted on a snail paced 2 and 3rd act. I kept wanting the story to follow her instead of Cruises character.

But when you see it again, you take in what the husband is doing. And by the third viewing, it seems like Kubrick was 2 steps away from a really good movie

And then you find out the the whole movie is a dream sequence and it all falls apart again.

Cruise and Kidman had as much to do with the failure of that film as Sidney Pollack or Leelee Sobieski.

JayDerek

are we sure it's a dream??

Mabuse

I thought it was fantastic the first time I saw it, and I still feel the same. I don't understand what's not to like.