Questions posed by EWS

[Spencer Thiel]

At 10:47 AM -0700 7/21/99, David wrote:

>All this serious analysis makes me question the first comments to this list
>saying the movie was horrible (which also seems to be the general word of
>mouth judgement elsewhere).  Could this general initial negative reaction be
>in response to seriously disturbing issues raised in the film?  I've not
>seen it yet, so I really don't know.

As I said before and I'll say it again, it is one of the only "bad" 
movies that I can't stop thinking about.

The movie on a linear scale with the rest of the crap out would rank 
high.  However, I couldn't help thinking after seeing it that a good 
deal of it was superfluous, and just plain stupid.  This movie took 
almost 2 years to film and I would hate to see what made it to the 
cutting room floor.  That stuff must have really sucked.

The negative reactions on the list (and mine as well) are probably 
due to the fact that we were expecting so much more from Kubrick.  In 
the past, even when he has been poor (Barry Lydon, IMHO), he has at 
least been different or ground breaking in the presentation of ideas 
that drive his film.  So much so that his movies defy the rule of 
hollywood that allows copycat movies to be released in droves after a 
financial success.  His movies and style are hard to copy.  Eyes has 
zero of the above and in my estimation will quickly be forgotten.
-
st.
-