for those enjoy Last of Mohican& the Patriot in the same genre is Rob Roy http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114287 and ememy at the gate http://us.imdb.com/Title?0215750
Off topic, so I apologize. But I gotta come to Kubricks defense. I feel some weird obligation (maybe because Strangelove to me was the best "War" movie, or perhaps any movie ever, and that is on topic enough to justify this response). Kubrick made a movie for himself....not the first one. Eyes wide shut to me was very much like 2001 (A Space odyssey). Completely visual. No explanation, no discernable plot, barely a theme as far as we know (other than it was about sex). Was Kubrick entitled to do this? He was entitled to do anything he wanted, because he was undoubtedly the best director ever. (Apoligies to Mr. Spielberg, Cecille B., Francis Ford, and so many others, and especially from me, to Quentin). Space Odyssey came out when I was in college. Major motion picture. Box office smash. Very "psychedelic" which was quite "in" in 1968. Only problem was no one knew what it was really about. Which was even better than knowing, 'cause it gave us all something to argue about. Everyone had their own interpretation of what it was about. All kinds of symbolism was inferred. Then I read the book. And saw the movie again. And guess what? The movie followed the book almost exactly (Saturn instead of Jupiter...big deal). And the book was clearly about a very straightforward and understandable subject (evolution assisted by an alien race). There was no way I am aware of to have truly discerned this without having read Clark's book...certainly no one I ever spoke with had been able to figure out the simplicity of the story having just viewed the film. But Kubrick, for whatever reason, decided to rely on visuals exclusively. Sort of like a silent movie without subtitles. Without dialogue, or without narration, most movies would not make sense (Any one ever see "What's Up Tiger Lilly?...If you have, you understand that visuals don't tell a story by themselves). I think Eyes Wide Shut was just Kubricks visual interpretation of how he felt about the subject of sex. From jealousy, lust, guilt, deception, etc.......It was just his visualization of his own fantasies (or nightmares). As in Space Odyssey, he left out his explanation. Though in Space odyssey, by reading Clark, we could KNOW what Kubrick was showing us, in Eyes, I guess there's only conjecture. So yeah, the movie sucked if you wanted it to make perfect sense. But tell me how many movies had the kind of visual impact of Eyes? 2001 comes to mind. When Tom Cruse goes into the costume store in the middle of the night, and deals with the proprietor, and searches out a costume, was there ever a more stunningly filmed visual sequence? Kubrick painted his canvases. Picasso was never asked to explain his art. Rembrandt didn't have to. Very straight forward. Was Picasso a failure if you didn't "get" his work? Or Dali? (name your own, too many examples). I think Eyes Wide Shut has to be considered the same way as soft clocks or women with their noses where their eyes should be. Just visual art. Some things are not explainable. And many things need no explanation. Certainly if Kubrick filmed his own "dreams", how could we understand them? We can't understand our own. Eyes has to just stand on it's own as a "painting". That's art for you. You like it or you don't. But if you don't, that doesn't mean it sucks. It just isn't your taste. Truthfully, I too was disappointed in the movie. Because I am a simple guy, and I want an explanation. But old Stan died, and I guess unless Sidney Pollack wants to explain the movie to me (assuming he could, which may be expecting too much), I will die too eventually, and the difference between me and Stanley will be he knew precisely what every aspect of the movie was about and I will go out not knowing. And of course my family will not inherit as much money as his did. Unless trading get a WHOLE LOT BETTER before my time is up! Rs7
Mohicans is good, esp. re: the seige of the French forte. Speaking of, didn't the French quit & get slaughtered in that one also?! :eek: Also like the opening scene of Gladiator, and the General's line: "People ought to know when they've been defeated."
Sorry, RS7. I respect that you feel you need to come to Kubrick's defense for whatever reason. "Eyes" made no sense. It had no point other than to show us thoughts of adultery, a tux-shop owner pimping out his daughter, and some weird sex club for rich people where intruders face possible death. And what was up with that masked girl who defended Cruise and then was led off to...die? Was she the girl whose life he saved at the beginning? It was erotic and very, very dark. Nothing more. Whatever demons Kubrick had and attempted to put onto film, the end result was a mishmash that I think most people will agree was wholly unsatisfying. I stand by my original assertion. It sucked. It's fine that you don't agree, of course!
Prior to Enemy at the Gates release, I read a book on the Stalingrad siege centered around the sniper hero Vasily Zeitsev and his opposite number SS Colonel Heinz Thorvald. Written by David L. Robbins. I highly recommend the book. As is often the case, the book is far superior to the movie, although I thought the movie was pretty good.
It is not that I don't agree. FOR ME, as I said, it was a big disappointment. "Wholly unsatisfying" says it well. I only disagreed with your term...that it "sucked". Not liking, or not appreciating, or not understanding a work of art is a personal preference. Very subjective. So it sucked for you. And for me. I just prefer a different term, for the reasons stated, and the statements I will make here again to clarify (hopefully) my reasons for this. While certainly you can say some movies indeed do suck, a cinematic canvas like "Eyes" is, on it's merits of visual achievement, and certain other criteria of discerning art from just film, IMO exempts it from the the category of "sucking". I did not like it (for the most part). So to me, it was like seeing what I know is an effort of great talent on the wall of a museum, that I just didn't care for. But, in my limited understanding and my "closed to the different" mindset, I somehow still know I am missing something great. Why? Because if DaVinci did it, and it is in the museum in the first place, I must safely assume that it is simply either beyond my ability to appreciate, which is cool, or maybe it was created to not satisfy all who may come to view it. And maybe even DaVici decided to create a piece of crap and goof on everyone because he knew he could get away with it, cause he was THE DA! (but how likely is this really?) Either way, I know that a genius created a work in a medium in which I am not an expert. And maybe he really did screw it up. And maybe I am right to think it's worthless. But chances are, I am more likely just missing out on what I am supposed to see. I just "don't get it". So as in such circumstances, I have to believe that Eyes Wide Shut was beyond my personal comprehension. Which differs from saying it "sucked".....I could, say "It sucked for me" (and it pretty much did), but I can't find the arrogance to say on an objective basis that the movie sucked. Too subjective, and I am not qualified to judge Kubrick in that way. If this is not clear, I admit to great sleep deprivation, and plead temporary insanity. Hopefully sometime later today I will find my misplaced brain. And FUCK Saddam! Rs7
The movie sucked, just accept it. Entertaining? No. Redeeming social value? No. Good soft core porn? No. Great acting performances? No. Realistic in any way? No. Looked and felt like New York? No. Generated controversy? Apart from how bad it was, no. Tarnished his legacy? Yes.
Yep. He wasn't the only director whose career ended rather poorly: Hitchcock, Peckinpah, and Kurosawa come to mind. And just have to say one thing, back on the main topic of the thread: STARSHIP TROOPERS PS - HEAVEN AND EARTH was alright - so long as you don't confuse it with Stone's movie of the same name, which, however well-intended, might qualify for a list of worst war movies...