So,
Tom Cruise, in general, is a turn-off, but please keep the movie in context for the times (back in 1999):
- Admittedly, the movie has no plot, but it's an artsy Kubrick film. American cinema prefers a strict beginning-middle-end plotline with boy getting the girl at the end of the film. "Eyes Wide Shut" is more in the European continental tradition of being an aesthetic, emotive experience like "La Dolce Vita". The thrust of the film was to be swept away in an illusory dream world where 20th century New York meets 19th century Vienna (or Paris) in some gothic tale.
- Tom Cruise was married to Nicole Kidman (and they divorced shortly after the movie). So, as a pair, they were bringing the height of celebrity to the movie, at the time. Incidentally, divorcing Nicole Kidman is proof that Tom Cruise is gay: unless she blatantly dumped him, Tom Cruise was a serious fool to leave her and can't claim to be a straight man
. - Tom Cruise acting was probably "pathetic" because Tom Cruise actually had to do some real acting. All his other roles are simply variations on the same theme of Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise, which is to say all cock, little thought, and no finesse!
Despite Tom Cruise's acting,
I actually liked the film interpreted in the context of a dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simcha  Ugh! That was perhaps the dumbest movie I've seen in years. Tom Cruise's "acting" (if you can call it that) was just pathetic. The plot was insignificant. The "shocking" scene at the end with the mask made the audience, and me, laugh at the end of the movie because it was so ridiculous.
Shortly after the movie my friends and I renamed the movie:
Cross-Eyed Slut |
