When Tom Cruise convinced director Stanley Kubrick to cast his wife Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut
All of Hollywood stopped and gasped in shock when Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman called it quits on their marriage in 2001, after being together for 11 years. However, during their time together, the couple worked alongside each other in movies like Far and Away (1992), Days of Thunder (1990) and Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut (1999). Interestingly, it was Cruise who suggested Kubrick cast Kidman in the film, and the director agreed to cash in on the undeniable and organic chemistry between the two.
Just prior to getting the coveted BFI fellowship, Crusie talked to the magazine Sight and Sound and shared the story of how he was brought onto the Kubrick project and how, after glistening reviews from directors Sydney Pollack and Martin Scorsese, he was more than ready to work with The Shining director. 'It was a great experience. I was very excited to do it. I knew Stanley's movies very well, and I was introduced to him through Sydney Pollack. So Stanley called Sydney because he wanted me to make a movie. He sent me a fax. I flew straight to his house, and I had already read the script before meeting him, so we sat down in his backyard and discussed it the entire day.
ALSO READ | Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible Final Reckoning is lowest rated M:I film on Rotten Tomatoes since 2006, far behind Fallout and Ghost Protocol
Tom Cruise mentioned how he didn't really need any convincing to work with Stanley Kubrick and also how, after discussing the script with him, he thought of Nicole Kidman for the role of Alice Harford in Eyes Wide Shut. 'I knew all of his films. I spoke to Scorsese about him and Pollack… so I knew what he did and how he worked. Then it was basically he and I getting to know each other. And when we were doing that, I suggested Nicole play the role [of Alice]. Because obviously she's a great actress.' Cruise shared that he assured Kubrick that he was fully committed to the project and, no matter how long it takes, he was going to see it through.
'I knew it was going to be a long shoot. He was like, 'No, no, no. We'll finish in three or four months.' And I said, 'Stanley, look, I'm here for you. Whatever it's going to take, we're going to do this…' I thought the film was very interesting, and I wanted to have that experience,' added Cruise.
In his illustrious career, Stanley Kubrick directed movies like The Shining (1980), A Clockwork Orange (1971), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Barry Lyndon (1975), among others. The director passed away in 1999 due to a heart attack.
On the other hand, Tom Cruise is gearing up for the release of Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, which he calls 'a culmination of all Mission Impossible movies and the work everyone has put into it for the last 30 years.' The film releases in India on May 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
US strikes Iran: How Tom Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick eerily predicted Donald Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer
When Top Gun: Maverick stormed theatres in 2022, it wasn't just a sequel—it was a resurrection. It defied every law of modern franchise gravity. No multiverse. No Marvel. No brooding they-them anti-hero. Just the return of a square-jawed cis-American icon doing exactly what he did 36 years ago—only faster, louder, and with a bigger sonic boom, looking like the folks at Scientology had finally found the Fountain of Youth. What made it work? First, it respected the original. No irony. No winks. No smug Gen Z subtext. Tom Cruise didn't hand over the keys—he repossessed the plane, flew it through a canyon at Mach 1.6, and landed it on an aircraft carrier with his grin cryogenically preserved in confidence. Kenny Loggins was still on standby. The soundtrack still slapped. The opening still had that slow-mo montage of jets and muscle, set to a synth-and-snare build-up so patriotic it practically handed you a Coors Light and called you "sir. " There was shirtless beach football. Beer without guilt. Bros being bros in the golden light of American masculinity. Maverick didn't just bring back a movie—it brought back a memory. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Eat 1 Teaspoon Every Night, See What Happens A Week Later [Video] getfittoday Undo Of the good old days, before drone warfare, before greyzone psyops, before movies needed three disclaimers and a trigger warning. A time when war was sexy, the rules were simple, and the only labels that mattered were 'friendly' and 'bogey on your six.' Second, it was real. Practical stunts. Real G-forces. No Marvel mush or green-screen gibberish. You felt every dive, every roll, every breath in a cockpit that looked more like a coffin. In an age of CGI fatigue, Maverick reminded viewers what cinema used to feel like—sweaty palms and pounding heartbeats, set to the scream of a jet engine. But above all, Top Gun: Maverick gave audiences something even rarer: sincerity. It wasn't cynical. It wasn't ashamed of heroism. It put on aviators, turned up the volume, and said: "Let's go." Top Gun Maverick Beach Scene 4K IMAX And go it did—straight into the heart of America's foreign policy theatre. Because what looked like a nostalgia-fuelled testosterone trip in 2022 now feels like something far more uncanny in 2025. As President Donald Trump orders a massive stealth strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, Maverick doesn't look like a movie anymore. It looks like a propehcy. A daring pre-emptive strike. An underground uranium plant. A ticking clock. A threat not to America, but to unnamed "allies in the region." What once felt like high-octane fantasy is now playing out, almost scene for scene, in the skies above the Middle East. And Tom Cruise? He wasn't just making a sequel. He was filming the trailer for Trump's next war. The Anti-Woke Hit That Soared When Maverick dropped, it didn't just break box-office records—it broke Hollywood's progressive chokehold on patriotism. No identity politics. No postmodern angst. No war guilt disguised as character development. Just raw American adrenaline, jet-fuelled storytelling, and Tom Cruise doing what Tom Cruise does best—defying gravity and cultural trends alike. Even Jon Hamm showed up, having shed the whiskey-soaked aura of Don Draper to play a tight-laced, by-the-book commander who looked like he personally banned pronouns from the base. You could almost smell the Aqua Velva. The cast was tailor-made for culture-war glory. Miles Teller stepped in as Rooster—Goose's mustachioed legacy—looking like he belonged on a recruitment poster for bros who bench for liberty. Monica Barbaro played Phoenix, the token female pilot who neither lectured nor got lectured—just flew like hell and left feminism on mute. Glen Powell's Hangman was Iceman 2.0: arrogant, tanned, and ready to drop a snide remark along with his payload. Jennifer Connelly was there too, ageless and cool, running a bar where no one talks politics. No lectures. No apologies. Just call signs, dogfights, and sweat-drenched montages scored to the sound of American confidence. Reagan Redux: Top Gun Was Always Propaganda Top Gun (1986) Official Trailer - Tom Cruise Movie The 1986 Top Gun wasn't just a movie—it was Cold War propaganda with better hair. The Pentagon handed over carriers, jets, and script suggestions. Hollywood returned the favour by air-dropping a generation of recruits into Navy flight school. It was recruitment wrapped in romance and set to guitar riffs. Maverick followed the same flight path. The military offered full support. The Navy looked like gods. But this time, there was a twist: the enemy was unnamed. No Soviet MiGs. No al-Qaeda. Just a faceless rogue nation with a uranium facility in the mountains. The target? An underground enrichment site. The mission? Destroy it before it becomes operational. The threat? Not to America—but to our unnamed "allies in the region." Nobody said Iran. Nobody said Israel. And yet everybody knew. That narrative sleight of hand—so brazen in its vagueness—would soon feel less like creative license and more like strategic foreshadowing. Scene for Scene: Trump's Iran Strike Mirrors the Film In June 2025, President Trump—new term, same instincts—ordered a real-world operation that bore eerie resemblance to Maverick. Seven B-2 bombers took off from the US under the cloak of midnight. The mission: Operation Midnight Hammer. The target: Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, buried in the mountains near Qom. A site designed to withstand everything short of Armageddon. A site built for this very moment. In Maverick, the enemy is never named, but the target is clear: a uranium plant in a GPS-jammed valley, surrounded by surface-to-air missiles and fifth-gen fighters. In real life, Fordow sits in a mountainous fortress, shielded by SAM batteries, jamming tech, and hardened bunkers. In the film: three weeks become ten days become go-time. In reality: intel warned that Iran's enrichment programme was just days from a critical threshold. And in both cases, the justification was identical: not America-first, but ally-defence. In Maverick, it's the vague protection of "our friends in the region." In 2025, Trump didn't even bother with euphemism—Israel was the subtext and subtext became text. It wasn't a shot-for-shot remake. But it was close enough to make even Cruise raise an eyebrow behind his aviators. Whose War Is It Anyway? What made Maverick eerie in hindsight was how little it bothered to justify the mission. No American hostages. No nukes pointed at New York. Just an unspoken understanding that someone else's red line was worth flying into. And that's what the Right is now debating. Why should American pilots risk their lives for foreign bunkers? Why should billion-dollar aircraft be dispatched to send messages on behalf of another democracy? Maverick doesn't ask "why." It only asks: "Can it be done?" That question, in 2025, is no longer rhetorical. The Real Finale: A Flag, a Flyby… and a Fade to Black Maverick ends like every great American military fantasy: mission accomplished, uranium plant obliterated, and Tom Cruise strutting across the tarmac with his abs and aircraft intact. The jets land. The music swells. The flag flutters in cinematic slow motion. It could have been lifted straight from the closing scene of Operation Midnight Hammer. But imagine for a second that Maverick didn't make it. That he was shot down in that snowy canyon, dying for a target that never threatened his home, buried in a country he couldn't name, on a mission no one would claim. Would the audience still cheer? Would they even remember who the war was for? This is the question now circling Washington like an unarmed drone—silent, discomfiting, and impossible to shoot down. When the justification for war is wrapped in vagueness, when the enemy is unnamed, and when "defending our allies" becomes the only plotline—how long before audiences, and voters, stop watching the show? After all, wasn't this the very premise Trump once campaigned against? That MAGA would not behave like Bush-era neocons salivating for another war? That America's sons and daughters would no longer be deployed as global hall monitors in faraway deserts? Only last month in Saudi Arabia, Trump, trying to draw a red line between himself and Dubya, declared: 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. ' As David Remnick pointed out in a recent piece in New Yorker , Trump once echoed Bannon and Tucker Carlson when he said: 'In recent years, far too many American Presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.' Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Dagger Attack Scene And yet, here we are—seven stealth bombers later. A highly classified mission. A decoy formation. A multi-theatre deployment. A strike not to defend American cities, but to send a message on behalf of regional allies. It may have looked like surgical precision from the skies—but on the ground, it's a policy contradiction wrapped in cinematic déjà vu. Even the bill Trump signed to fund the strike—what he called a 'big, beautiful defence package'—flies in the face of MAGA's small-government gospel. This wasn't lean governance. It was big-budget interventionism, scored by swelling violins and paid for with a trillion-dollar cheque. It ignited a backlash from his base—and a very public falling out with Elon Musk, who accused Trump of abandoning fiscal discipline for Pentagon theatrics. Because it didn't start with a movie. It started with a massacre. On October 7, 2023, Hamas fighters paraglided into southern Israel, launching the deadliest attack in the country's history. That single morning shattered illusions across the region. It led to a brutal war in Gaza. It provoked the Houthis to enter the fray. It drew Hezbollah closer to the edge. And it hardened Israel's posture, setting off a chain reaction that eventually led the US to launch Operation Midnight Hammer. From beach football to bunker busters, from afterburners to actual airstrikes—Top Gun began as propaganda. Maverick upgraded it into spectacle. And Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer may be the moment the reel became real. The movie always had the jets. Reality just pressed play. And if that doesn't make you pause—even if you're wearing aviators—just remember: Not even Tom Cruise can outrun a B-2 bomber. Though, to be fair, he'd probably try. On foot. While dangling off a missile. Smiling. As for the true MAGA believers—those who rallied behind promises of no more endless wars and a return to fiscal sanity—they're left asking the same question Maverick once did: Whose mission was this anyway?
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Tom Cruise to Receive First-Ever Honorary Oscar at 2025 Governors Awards
Hollywood legend Tom Cruise will be honoured with his first-ever Honorary Oscar at the 16th Annual Governors Awards on November 16, 2025. Known for redefining the action genre with his dedication to stunts, cinema, and the theatrical experience, Cruise is being celebrated for his decades-long impact on President Janet Yang called him 'an inspiration to all.' The same event will also honour Debbie Allen, Wynn Thomas, and Dolly Parton, making this one of the most iconic Governors Awards lineups in recent years. Cruise's upcoming release, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning, is already generating massive buzz. Read More
India Today
4 days ago
- India Today
F1 movie review: Brad Pitt delivers the most enjoyable film of the year
Joseph Kosinski, who directed Tom Cruise's bona fide smash 'Top Gun: Maverick', is also the director of the upcoming motor-racing adrenaline rush titled 'F1'. To sum up F1 in a line - it's about experiencing a visceral, high-speed head rush inside the claustrophobic cockpit of a racing car.'Top Gun Maverick' and 'F1' have a lot of similarities - both are headlined by the world's biggest superstars. One has the daredevil Tom Cruise while the other has the absolutely charming and handsome Brad Pitt. They both have top-notch soundtracks boasting of big pop stars like Lady Gaga in 'Top Gun' and Doja Cat in 'F1'. But despite the comparisons, they are both very different. How ? Let's find has Pitt playing the title role of a washed-out ageing race driver, Sunny Hayes. He gets a once-in-a-lifetime offer from his old colleague, played by Javier Bardem, to join his team of racers and help him qualify and possibly win the F1 title. It all seems very unlikely with Sunny's ageing career and rising competition from Joshua Pearce played by the surprise package of the film - Damson Idris. There are so many subplots that add up and lead to that mind-numbing climax, and every actor and character has his or her space in this high-octane journey. Take a look at F1's trailer: F1 is easily one of the best films of the year simply because it knows how to dish out what it promises to its audience. From the very first frame to the last, the build-up is so solid that you forgive some of the gaps and overlook the blunders. The camera work is sharp and the Hans Zimmer background score is hypnotic. It almost feels like the Inception sound on LSD. But the single best reason why 'F1' works so well on the big screen is - Brad Pitt bringing that good old-school charisma back to the big director has clocked some bare-body money shots of Pitt to show that he still has got that sizzle, but it's his face that really is the main draw. With those tossed-up hair and that blue-eyed grin he could sell you air for a dime, and you would buy a barrel! Another strong point of the film is the young actor Damson Idris, who is rock solid in his performance as Pitt's adversary cum sidekick. His character is so nuanced and grey that it's a delight to watch him in awe. He stands his own ground in the big stand-off scenes with Pitt and excels at his craft.'F1' is not deep or serious. It doesn't engage you much at that level. But it reminds us why we go to the theatres - to have a blast. At a time when this experience of having a good time in the theatres is getting less and less enjoyable, 'F1' is a reason to celebrate. Jump on that ride, fasten your seat belt because 'F1' is one hell of an adrenaline rush that you don't want to miss!4 out of 5 stars to Reel
