Just read this script. It mirrors the movie almost word for word, except the ending is different. The script is strong, dialogue driven with narratives at exactly the right place. Kubrick was a master of setting a scene when looking for maximum visual effect. The performance of both Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise was, as usual, very flat. True , I am not a fan of either of them and despite my Australian heritage, I don't harbor the slightest desire for Nicole at all. As good as the script was, both the characters, Bill and Alice could have been played by character actors. I'm sure the movie would have had greater success had the lead roles been filled with quality actors. I'm sure the chance to work with a master such as Kubrick, ultimately for the last time, would have been priceless.GDFace (7 out of 10 )
I disagree with most everything the previous poster wrote.
1. The script is not anywhere close to word-for-word. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single scene or conversation that's written exactly as it is seen in the movie.
2. Part of what makes EWS so special is its hypnotic pacing and rhythmic, mechanical language. What you call flat performances, I call actors doing what their director (and the movie) demanded of them. It's not just Cruise and Kidman; the whole cast does it (and to great effect).
3. Character actors? Cruise and Kidman WERE Bill and Alice -- a seemingly perfect couple with a lot of skeletons in their closet. Kubrick saw this and chose them for that exact reason.
Script: 7/10 | Movie: 10/10natalia (7 out of 10 )
I must accept that I didn't actually see the movie, but with its plot was enough for me to agree with what the previous comment says at last. Any fan of such couple (as myself) would realize even without watching the movie, that they were trying to reflect on the screen their own experience. Facts are clear: they divorced almost a year later.
(7.00 out of 10)