Times when you overestimated the writer/director

[Yarglenurp]

I still can't believe Adam Sandler made the movie 'Jack and Jill', easily the worst movie I have ever seen and which often tops the lists of many people's most hated movies even 13 years after its release. Views on Sandler and his substantial body of work vary greatly from person to person - I mostly like Sandler and his movies - but in all of his other movies even if I didn't much care for them I could find at least some positives, or it was a simple case of the movie not being my thing. That wasn't the case with Jack and Jill, it is just flat out awful.

lol, I don’t think this is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s more like… the movie puts in something that starts off super-intriguing and is suggestive of a larger plot and mind-blowing twist, only to fuck it all up by going in a much simpler, dumber, just plain nonsensical direction.

 

[Bramblethorn]

here’s a real question: why does Weyland Yutani even give a shit about the aliens? They can mass produce robot drones. Robot drones that they could realistically kill hives en masse without the dangers of being infested. Sure, the aliens are dangerous, but so is a robot with a gun. It’s always like, “these specimens are so precious, they must be valuable and experimented with,” but… why? They’re just big acidic bugs.

I guess a military argument is that drones can't self-reproduce. If you want to fight one battle, drones make more sense, but if you want to fuck up an entire planet, it's probably easier to drop a handful of facehuggers than deliver an army of drones from wherever you're manufacturing.

But it doesn't seem like a great idea if you want to use the planet afterwards. Unless you're REALLY sure you can control the aliens.

Probably a more plausible reason is non-military applications. Aliens can grow from a puppy-sized chestburster to something bigger than a man in a very short period of time - I don't recall exactly how long it took in Alien but no more than about a day? They somehow acquire traits of the creatures they parasitise, and they aren't harmed by the super-strong acid that circulates throughout their system. There's probably billions of dollars worth in patents there for somebody who can figure out how they do those things, even if they never manage to turn them into obedient warriors. But IDK whether the franchise explored that side; I stopped keeping up after #3.

 

[mirafrida]

The entire X-Files series is basically made of this.

Chris Carter may have been flailing, but he did it with atmosphere. The key as a viewer was to never, ever think about what you had just seen, but simply allow it to flow over you.

 

[mirafrida]

I was mildly surprised to read recently that Eyes Wide Shut is enjoying a critical rennaisance. I've generally found Kubrik's work interesting (in a good way), but I remember being disappointed with that particular movie when it came out. As I recall, I appreciated the hallucinogenic style, but found the Tom Cruise character's motivations so juvenile that it was a struggle to engage with the psychological themes the movie was supposed to be exploring. But maybe I just didn't appreciate it properly. Should I give it another watch?

 

[Yarglenurp]

I was mildly surprised to read recently that Eyes Wide Shut is enjoying a critical rennaisance. I've generally found Kubrik's work interesting (in a good way), but I remember being disappointed with that particular movie when it came out. As I recall, I appreciated the hallucinogenic style, but found the Tom Cruise character's motivations so juvenile that it was a struggle to engage with the psychological themes the movie was supposed to be exploring. But maybe I just didn't appreciate it properly. Should I give it another watch?

I kind of agree, though was never really intrigued too much by the “mystery” of eyes wide shut. It seemed pretty obvious early on that there just not enough time in the movie to create a conclusion that would satisfy the premise.

My biggest issue with eyes wide shut is that it just didn’t live up to Kubrick’s greatest hits… Clockwork Orange, 2001, & Apocalypse Now.

I get the sense that, in his last few years , he had gotten too “comfortable” and no longer actually experienced the nihilism so prevalent in his works.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My biggest issue with eyes wide shut is that it just didn’t live up to Kubrick’s greatest hits… Clockwork Orange, 2001, & Apocalypse Now. Full Metal Jacket.

Just corrected that for you.

I get the sense that, in his last few years , he had gotten too “comfortable” and no longer actually experienced the nihilism so prevalent in his works.

Years ago I found one of the very articles Kubrick wrote about film, back in 1962 or '63. He wrote about the ultimate movie, how to cast it, how to get the right studio to give him endless time, its subject matter.

He'd just bought the rights to Traumnovelle, the 1926 novella by the Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler, which is the basis for Eyes Wide Shut. He'd nurtured that movie for 35 years before he made it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I was mildly surprised to read recently that Eyes Wide Shut is enjoying a critical rennaisance. I've generally found Kubrik's work interesting (in a good way), but I remember being disappointed with that particular movie when it came out. As I recall, I appreciated the hallucinogenic style, but found the Tom Cruise character's motivations so juvenile that it was a struggle to engage with the psychological themes the movie was supposed to be exploring. But maybe I just didn't appreciate it properly. Should I give it another watch?

Yes.

But keep in mind, I'm a Kubrick tragic.

 

[SimonDoom]

I was mildly surprised to read recently that Eyes Wide Shut is enjoying a critical rennaisance. I've generally found Kubrik's work interesting (in a good way), but I remember being disappointed with that particular movie when it came out. As I recall, I appreciated the hallucinogenic style, but found the Tom Cruise character's motivations so juvenile that it was a struggle to engage with the psychological themes the movie was supposed to be exploring. But maybe I just didn't appreciate it properly. Should I give it another watch?

Meh. I don't know what one would gain from a second watching. A big problem is Cruise--I like him a lot in his adventure films, but I think he's a limited actor who just doesn't pull it off in this film.

The tone of this film just did not work for me.

I haven't seen all of Kubrick's films but this is by far the weakest one I've seen.

 

[JGittes]

I think the point of EWS is Tom Cruise. Well, not Tom himself, but the reaction of everyone in the film to the idea of Tom being the sexiest man alive at the time. As always, with all things cinema, please listen to Karina Longworth's podcast, 'You Must Remember This,' for a full analysis. She devoted two hours to EWS.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Another great franchise-level disappointment would be

Just corrected that for you.

Years ago I found one of the very articles Kubrick wrote about film, back in 1962 or '63. He wrote about the ultimate movie, how to cast it, how to get the right studio to give him endless time, its subject matter.

He'd just bought the rights to Traumnovelle, the 1926 novella by the Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler, which is the basis for Eyes Wide Shut. He'd nurtured that movie for 35 years before he made it.

Ah, shit, I meant Full Metal Jacket.

I get those two confused a lot.

Anyways, maybe that’s the case about EWS. It might just be my bias against the last movie famous directors ever make. I always get the sense that when a director has gotten famous and old, they either start buying into their own cult of personality or just decide to say “fuck it” to anything they don’t want to do, and their movies tend to be subpar.

There are definitely exceptions to that rule though.