Post a response to this discussion thread
the question itself i won't comment.
oh, wait, can i say the others???
it's a tom cruise film, i mean, he DID give the money for
shooting it, right?
as eyes wide shut, you have to consider that most of the
stuff in that movie were cut out or changed in order so it
looks like a fucking 2hours of tom cruise walking the
street in his oh-so-flick coat and having a midlife crisis
from the stand of the boy who will never have one, because
people still think of him as an actor (now THAT'S an
abominational opinion!) and good looking and famous enough
to stalk him for sex.
kubrick made some good movies, and some bad. the main fault
that he left to the film history is that today the film
world is squirming with kubrick's wannabes, since HE was
the first to invent that cold, sharp, distance-from-
emotions photography.
lynch is not actually pretensious; he has lost a good portion of his imagination and wits(just like john carpenter some 5 movies ago). and he's not weird. wanna see weird? try darren arofonsky's debut, P, which is, actually, the movie of that year by my standard.
Post a response to this discussion thread