- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,038
Still, I often wonder what Eyes Wide Shut would have been if Kubrick hadn't died and the movie had starred almost anyone else.
What do you mean? Kubrick died only a few months before Eyes Wide Shut was released.
Still, I often wonder what Eyes Wide Shut would have been if Kubrick hadn't died and the movie had starred almost anyone else.
Has anyone seen Roadhouse 2?
Cocktail w. Tom Cruise is fucking awful. Turned it off about a halfway through.
If you have a choice between movies, the answer is usually Road House.
What do you mean? Kubrick died only a few months before Eyes Wide Shut was released.
I'd never seen it. Finally got around to it earlier this year. Made it about 10 minutes in when I realized the characters were going to periodically be singing. Awful. Turned it off.I need to watch Legend though. There's this whole heartbreaking story behind me and that movie so I'm not sure if I can bring myself to watch it.
Ah, you're right, it's blue and not pink.I was referring to Cocktail when I said "neon pink". It contrasts the neon blue of the Road House logo almost perfectly. Same movie except its for men and not fags. Maverick guy gets hired by a bar and does a great job only doesn't suck a million dicks and flip bottles in the air every 5 minutes like a fairy
Kubrick wasn't done with the movie. They released it in an unfinished state. Well, finished by other people trying to guess what Kubrick would have done.
As for Roadhouse and Cocktail, who the fuck compares these movies?
Cruise was his choice because he wanted to cast an actual married couple. If he'd made it in the 1960s, maybe it would have been Martin Landau and Barbara Bain. In the late 2000s, maybe he would have cast Pitt and Jolie (which would have been much worse). But there really aren't that many couples to chose from at any given time that would fit what he wanted to do on any level. I could see Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, I guess. Although while I think Robbins would have been infinitely better in the lead role, Sarandon would have been a stretch for Kidman's part. No offense, Susan.Right, but Cruise was his choice.
In the late 2000s, maybe he would have cast Pitt and Jolie (which would have been much worse).
it's a poetic comparison. but it's valid. I was watching this movie with some short pussy guy working a bar like a prodigy, doing like the same trademark move over and over again.... then im thinking like.... there's a better VERSION of this SITUATION
Cruise was his choice because he wanted to cast an actual married couple. If he'd made it in the 1960s, maybe it would have been Martin Landau and Barbara Bain. In the late 2000s, maybe he would have cast Pitt and Jolie (which would have been much worse). But there really aren't that many couples to chose from at any given time that would fit what he wanted to do on any level. I could see Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, I guess. Although while I think Robbins would have been infinitely better in the lead role, Sarandon would have been a stretch for Kidman's part. No offense, Susan.
But end of the day, whatever chemistry Kubrick hoped to capture by using an actual married couple, I don't think it was worth having to use Cruise for that role. That's if you accept Cruise and Kidman as an actual married couple to begin with.
And also, you say it's his choice, but it's never really just the director's choice. 90% of casting is trying to attract investors, and then you try to choose the best option available from what the investors will lay money down for. That's why we have Keanu Reeves trying to single-handedly wreck Coppola's Dracula, for example. And Cruise is a guaranteed money draw.
laserdiscs, brah