Genres

Visitors Review

Matt..377 2012-05-22 15:29:29

Worth final chapter in a great director's career.

A perfect way for Kubrick to end his career (and life), with an absolutelyfantastic final film.Ignore the hype, ignore the publicity about being digitally edited to avoidan NC-17 rating (I own the European release, though a U.S. director's cutwould be nice), just watch it and soak it in, but pay attention!Psychologist Kidman reveals to her husband (Cruise, also a psychologist) arecent sexual fantasy, which did NOT involve him. He's is then thrown into ajealous tizzy, and amid his rage, he finds himself embarking on his ownpsychosexual misadventures.Fantastic photography, scores of beautiful nude women, tip-top performances,and of course, cinematic genius Kubrick's magnificent direction allhighlight this excellent psychological piece--though as I mentioned, YOUMUST PAY ATTENTION!Because as with all of Kubrick's films, you're either going to understandthe entire thing, or you won't understand any of it at all. And if you missjust one simple, seemingly irrelevant detail from this masterpiece, you willbe unable to comprehend the entire concept.So keep that in mind as you sit down to view it, EYES WIDE SHUT is agenuine, complex story, unlike the myriad no-brainer sex flicks thattypically gain vast adulation.***1/2 out of ****; Thank you Stanley Kubrick, for bringing it to us onelast time.

MadReviewer 2012-05-22 09:02:21

Made Twenty Years Too Late

"Eyes Wide Shut" might have been considered director Stanley Kubrick's mostcontroversial masterpiece . . . if he'd filmed it in the early 1980's, as heoriginally intended. While artistically and visually brilliant, "Eyes WideShut" suffers from relying on a script that would've been considered daringand shocking in years gone by, but for 1999 and beyond it offers nothingparticularly outrageous. With little substance behind the intended shock,the film is left with little else to entertain the audience. It's kind oflike watching "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" or even "Basic Instinct" today-- at the time those films were released, they pushed a lot of emotionalbuttons, but now the issues and topics they dealt with seems rather tame.The film deals with the relationship between Dr. William Harford (TomCruise) and his wife, Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman), a wealthy, happilymarried couple with a small, lovely daughter (Madison Eginton). However, inan awkward moment Alice confesses to William that she considered cheating onhim early on in their marriage. She never actually acting on her adulterousthoughts, but William becomes so enraged that he goes out alone into thenight, contemplating the future of his marriage and looking for a randomsexual encounter with which he can gain a certain amount ofrevenge.And that's it. There's a lot of scenes (some imagined, some real) of kinkysexual encounters, but nothing incredibly over the top, nothing that hasn'tbeen seen in mainstream films before. William's reaction to his wife'sconfession seems entirely too strong. No, I don't think that any man everwants to hear from his wife that she thought about having an affair withsomebody else, but to react as strongly as he did seemed slightly odd. Ifshe'd actually had the affair, it might've made more sense. Scenes thatcould've been built into dark, brooding, tormented sequences of Williamagonizing over what to do often seem pointless because of this . . . andover two hours' worth of them is mind-numbingly boringoverkill.There's still a few highlights -- Cruise puts in a solid performance,considering the material he has to work with, and Kidman actually shines inwhat really is a supporting role as Alice. Also, the mood, the cameraangles, the odd lighting -- in terms of technique, the film ranks as one ofKubrick's finest efforts. Considering all the hype that went along withthis film, though, it's very disappointing, and even on its own merits, it'saverage at best. Decent fare for a Kubrick fan, but otherwise, don'tbother. C-

2012-05-16 02:28:00

Thirty years (at least!) too late.

A tip for all you film students out there: "natural light" does not necessarily mean "brilliant cinematography". Okay? Personally, the glare of the natural light mixed with the generally grainy image gave me a headache, as well as making it hard for me to make out exactly what I was looking at -- I have 20/20 vision, by the way. But if you think the look of the film was stunning, then more power to you."Eyes Wide Shut" is a Sexual Revolution picture that is so out-of-date that it's beyond the, say, early 1990's nostalgia for it. What would have seemed daring in 1969 merely elicits a "so what" response in 1999. The emotionally naive will be provoked by this movie: "If you men only knew. . .!" Well, we ALREADY know, just as much as women know that men are constantly plagued with sexual fantasies as well. You need a culture of sexual repression to make this hoary old chestnut work; in 2000, there is no such culture. So the characters have sexual fantasies -- who doesn't. Now, Stanley, what is really interesting about these two?Given the paucity of ideas, one at least expects something sexy, but Kubrick doesn't even give us that. This is the coldest fish of a movie about sex I have ever seen. Oh, and it IS about sex, by the way, not all this "dreams and reality" blarney that I keep reading in the gushing reviews. Otherwise, why the issue of adultery? -- the "orgy at the mansion" (a cliche right out of De Sade)? -- the nubile daughter of the haberdasher? But Kubrick, always the clinical director, proved unable to make a sexy film, and instead gave us the story of an agitated voyeur who bumbles into one frustrated encounter after another. And that, folks, is no more of a deep concept than real, actual sex is. A frankly depicted story of the sorrows of sexual life would have been much more ambitious.Finally: the pacing is inexcusable. Why are they talking so slow? So that I can savor the gritty celluloid for that much longer? Another tip for film students: "slow" pacing doesn't exactly mean "art-film style". However, it CAN and does mean ponderousness. And it seems that Kubrick's direction is purposely ponderous to make all this look deeply thought-out, as if sheer SLOWNESS would make the film's contents less silly. Hmmm . . . guess it worked. But you know? the masks were terrific, so I'll give it two stars rather than one.

matthew wilder 2012-05-15 05:48:27

Wild Orchid 2 with soaring aspirations

The last and least of Kubrick's twelve extant features, EYES WIDE SHUTsuggests a wistful postscript to the theme that dominated the director'scareer: the turning of men into machines. In EYES, the machinelike masterdirector yearns to be a man--to make a non-misogynistic, non-misanthropicmovie that sits at eye level with its characters, viewing them with empathyrather than lordly detachment. That the attempt is a sad botch stems first from Kubrick's choice ofscenarist. Frederic Raphael is a witty and craftsmanlike Britishscreenwriter who left the movie scene (more or less) after writing DARLINGand TWO FOR THE ROAD. One can only speculate that Kubrick chose the sixtyishBrit to tell the story of an attractive, upwardly mobile Central Park Westcouple (Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman) because he wanted a brainy butcontrollable foot soldier to do his bidding. (Kubrick touched up Raphael'sscript.)Kubrick's and Raphael's incomprehension of contemporary sexual mores, thedetails of behavior and language that are specific to late-nineties America,gives this adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" a generic,uninvestigated, sketched-in feel. Unlike the phony-looking Vietnam backdropsshot in England for FULL METAL JACKET, the upscale-Manhattan ambience ofEYES isn't meant to be deliberately stylized and out-of-time; it just ringsphony, flat. And the flatfooted approach to scene-building that's charmingin a movie like THE SHINING--where, in beginner's fashion, Kubrick opensscenes with handshakes and hellos and ends them with goodbyes--squasheswhatever atmospherics Kubrick intends here. A fairly simplenight-on-the-wild-side tale is molasses'd into coma by Kubrick'splodding.Visually generally undistinguished--except for a near-autistic fascinationwith the trippy properties of Christmas-tree lights--and clotted withdreadful bit players (Kubrick's favorite style of acting seems to be foundin the featured parts in Hammer horror movies), EYES suggests a grotesquelyattenuated episode of RED SHOE DIARIES. The problem is that our experienceof sexuality has changed since Kubrick first announced plans for this movie,before the release of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE--but somehow the period stretchingfrom amyl nitrate and herpes to Monica's cigar didn't reach Kubrick Manor,where the height of id-run-amok is depicted as a group of medieval-styledswingers staging a sort of Benedictine theme orgy. When the hero is meant to be chastened and shattered by his experience ofSex Untrammeled, you can only stare at the screen in bafflement. Are wereally meant to think that a wealthy, good-looking doctor--surely a one-timeraging frat boy--has spent his adult life in New York City and neverencountered drag queens, fetish balls, subway perverts, winking hookers? TomCruise's performance as the regular guy undone is the best thing about themovie. His boyishness and air of unsinkability, so dull when placed in synchwith a go-for-it Simpson-Bruckheimer movie, gives energy and poignancy towhat would otherwise be a strictly academic exercise. Nicole Kidman is anable actress who's wrecked by Kubrick's direction--which seems to be modeledafter the ticking metronome David Mamet uses to hypnotize his actors likechickens. Her giggly-airhead business in the first scenes seems to beroiling toward a boil, but then Kubrick hands her a pot-smokingbig-revelation scene that seems to have been paced after the fashion of anexposition-fest in an Ed Wood movie. Blam--Kidman gets vaporised by thedoomsday machine.What's touching about EYES WIDE SHUT is both that the Schnitzler materialseems to have meant a lot to Kubrick, and that he had no idea what it meant.Kubrick just didn't trust himself, or didn't trust that it would becommercially sound, to give Schnitzler's ideas their properlanguage--free-form Expressionist poetry. Fearing becoming David Lynch, heturned himself into Adrian Lyne. Kubrick clearly took pains to make a moviethat wasn't "clinical," sex-negative, girly-objectifying. But he also seemsto have lost what he wanted the material to say. What's left is an "eroticthriller" paced like a late Rossellini movie. It's possible that Kubrick, avaledictorian at thesis-making, didn't have the understanding of the softinsides of human beings to make this kind of movie. Or, sadder still,nearing the age of seventy, he didn't have the energy to bring ittogether.

ccthemovieman-1 2012-05-10 20:30:55

Pitiful Way For Kubrick To Finish

I have to concur with a lot of people here about being a fan of StanleyKubrick's films....and being so disappointed with this effort. I mean,come on: what was this garbage? All the hype beforehand didn't help,along with Kubrick's reputation, so to sit through two-and-- a--halfhours of this nonsense was ridiculous.Frankly, I don't know one person in real-life who liked this movie. Theonly plaudits were the ones I read from the normally whacked-out filmcritics, most of whom never want to admit "they don't get it" or love acertain director no matter what he puts on screen. Many times, such asin this movie, there is "nothing to get." This is nothing but a niceparade of boobs on display - and even that got boring soon - and a lotof pretentious "art."Don't believe all those reviews that remark how "thought--provoking""this movie is, etc, nor belittle yourself if you walked out of thetheater and thought, "huh?" Consider yourself normal, honest humanbeings. Only the phonies, those pseudo-intellectuals, will blabber onand on about the merits of this film. It had no merit, cheapened sex ina big way, and was sad swan song for Kubrick.

Dan S 2012-05-10 13:28:52

Unfortunate Legacy for a Great Movie Maker

I am a great fan of Kubrick. His movies are timeless and courageous, butthis one just didn't work. It was, in a word, lame. As a dark fantasy itdid not disturb, as a comment on life it did not convince. Tom Cruiseseemed uncomfortable and out of his element, perhaps he's not ready to growup and act in mature adult roles. Some of Kidman's worst work, and Ibelieve she is a tremendously talented actress, she was better and moreappealing in Batman. Too bad she allowed Kubrick to sell out her stunningphysical features rather than utilise her acting ability. I would haveexpected more from both of them.Perhaps, also, it was also a poor choice of material. I know that Kubrickhas had the rights to this book for quite a while, should have kept them alittle bit longer. There was nothing in the way of revelation about theconflict the characters were faced with. We all deal with temptation everyday. However the characters reaction was almost cartoonish - something onewould find in a TV sitcom, but with an attempt to be dark. I never boughtthat the Cruise character was ever in any danger, and never empathised withhis plight. The Michael Douglas movie, The gGe, did what this movie wastrying to do with much greater effect - the entering of a surreal worldwhere one's most basic values and character are tested. The Cruisecharacter survived (morally) by pure luck and not due to any inner strength.He was nothing more than a hypocrite that got lucky in the end and the lastline of the movie was nothing short of stupid.Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, the Shining, 2001, etc. These will liveforever.I'm afraid many of the other commentors here have their eyes wide shut tothis movie, and are voting for Kubrick's legacy. His legacy I give a 10,but this movie get's a 3.

jeleach 2012-05-08 10:18:24

A Flawed View of Sexual Tension

Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest film makers of all time.Unfortunately, he.....like most creative people, ran out of inspirationyears and years ago. I've watched this movie over and over and I stillcomeup with the same blank page. I remember walking out of the theatre afterwatching 2001 the first time and having that wondering. This movie begsthesame instinct, but without the substance. Eyes Wide Shut is not a BADmovie, in fact.......it is very well worth watching. It is just not aKubrick quality movie. As long as I am slamming this picture, I might aswell take the time to say how awful Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were inthis endeavor. I never believed him as a DR. or her as anything. SydneyPollock worked in his role as the shadowy rich guy, but they didn't domuchwith him either. This movie is a disappointment.

bhatia 2012-05-07 23:53:25

'Make it a bad, bad thing'

Stanley Kubrick's last film turned out to probably be his worst. Butthis movie wasn't bad overall. Its slow beat, almost haunting, draws a lotof suspense and mystery to the film. Hect, that was what Kubrick will alwaysbe remembered for. Unfortunately for this film- it didn't do too well at thebox office, let alone with the critics. But I don't have to be aprofessional critic to say that this movie wasn't interesting or very nasty.Of course- It does have some explicit sexual content mainly stretched out tosuit the men's needs, not the women. In complete honesty, this movie did not lose a beat, nor really lose anymomentum 'til the very end. Although this movie doesn't answer all thequestions that the audience really wants to know- people has to understand,that *is* the message Kubrick is trying to send. Out of ten stars, I give it an 8. ******** Will there ever be another like Kubrick? Hopefully. For not only was hiswork unique, but it was something that no other director has ever had likehim- Silent vision. We will miss you Kubrick.

steven-222 2012-05-05 09:25:14

"The life of the heterosexual is a SICK and BORING life!"

Some observations:1) As the movie starts, with that nonstop jazz waltz by Shostakovichplaying and the New York Xmas party at an elegant townhouse witheveryone in gowns and tuxes, and then, OMG—is Sydney Pollack in thismovie?—I had to wonder if I was watching a parody of all those WoodyAllen Manhattan melodramas. Only much funnier.2) Directed by Kubrick and co-written by Fredric Raphael...who both hadsuch seminal successes in the 1960s...this movie strikes me as the verylast gasp of 1960s Eurotrash. The nudity + Venetian masks, opulenthouses and clothes, the terrible acting...if only it were badlysubtitled and starred Alain Delon instead of Tom Cruise, this could bea lost "masterpiece" by some forgotten Italian hack-director. (Exceptthe 1960s Italian version would have been a lot more violent, bloody,and...fun!)Alas, Kubrick made this movie exactly 30 years too late. I think maybethere should be a rule that 70-year-old filmmakers should NOT try tomake "erotic" thrillers. The result is inevitably creepy, and not in agood way.3) As the "story" progresses, with poor Tom unable to get laid andwitnessing one buzz-killing scene after another, I couldn't help butthink of that classic line by Edith Massey in Female Trouble,hysterically warning her son away from the straight world: "The life ofthe heterosexual is a SICK and BORING life!" Kubrick seems to have madethis exercise to illustrate just that point.4) Rich weirdos having a sex orgy-cum-black mass at a mansion in themiddle of nowhere is a venerable Eurotrash cliché, but I think RomanPolanski had the last word on this particular motif in The Ninth Gate,also released in 1999, and an infinitely sexier, more sinister movie.If only Polanksi had made Eyes Wide Shut...sigh...5) Was this Kubrick's pro-monogamy, post-AIDS rebuttal of Rocky HorrorPicture Show? Tom & Nicole as Brad & Janet, tempted to stray from theirmarriage vows. But here, they don't. "Don't Dream It, Be It" isreplaced by "Think About It Constantly, Don't Dare Do Anything (You'llDie!)"...and of course, rich weirdos in costumes being kinky in amansion in the middle of nowhere.6) Why the Xmas trees everywhere? (Except of course at the mansion ofthe human-sacrificing Satan worshippers.) Because this is a Christianmovie, duh!7) Death looms over every scene of Tom seeking to get laid outside hismarriage. At the first party, the naked woman (tempation) almost diesof an OD. When his patient's daughter kisses Tom, her dead father isright there in the room. The hooker Tom almost sleeps with (saved by aphone call from his wife) turns out to have tested HIV-positive; thatwas a close call! And of course, there is a human sacrifice at themasked ball; another close call, as it could have been Tom. At the end(while Xmas-shopping, and in the presence of their daughter) the twoprocreators face up to the inevitability of having sexual fantasies,but renew their "covenant" to "f" only each other.8) Thus, Kubrick's final message to mankind: sex outside procreativemonogamy = death.And here are all these "reviewers" rattling on about how transgressivethis movie is, when it could hardly be more conservative. Titillating,yes, but only so as to show a man walking through the dangerous fire oftemptation and coming out the other side.

frodo 2012-05-04 20:31:18

Stanley Kubrick's Masterpiece

One thing I have to say is, good bye Stanley and I hope heaven accepts you with open arms. For us on earth, it is the beginning of the end. We have lost a great Filmmaker and an even better Artist. Ever since I first laid eyes on "The Shining" when I was 9 years old at a video store and bought it. My life was never the same since, now he says good bye with "Eyes Wide Shut", a beauityful film about love and lost. The meanings of holding an unstable marriage. Thumbs Way Way up.

Seamus Furr 2012-05-02 08:19:31

Terribly over-anticipated

What a disappointment. The story is dulllll, the performances are cold andinhuman, and even for Kubrick, the pacing is lethal. I love Kubrick, but I found nothing redeeming here. Save yourself eightbucks and two hours and forty minutes.

Susie-7 2012-05-02 00:24:33

Hit and miss

This movie needed more editing. I know they wanted to keep the film the wayKubrick made it, but it seems unlikely to me that he wasn't going to edit itanymore after other people actually saw it. Some of the transitions betweenscenes are absolutely horrible, and there is a lot of wasted space, thoughthat likely would've stayed in the film; Kubrick always liked to plodalong.Which brings me to my second criticism of this film. At times I found it,well, boring, which seems strange, since it was billed as some kind ofsex-fest; instead, there isn't that much sex in it, although in my opinion,that is probably a better thing. I also thought the scenes with LeeLeeSobieski were quite irrelevant. At most, they were amusing but addednothing to the story at all.My fourth problem was those stupid added-in figures in the orgy scene. It'snot that I need to see what they're obscuring; the problem is that thefigures were extremely distracting and really stood out. My fifth problem also relates to the orgy scene: why were most of the womenso skinny? The piano player talks about how amazing the women are there, andthen they turn out to be a bunch of sticks. I'm sorry, but if I can see allthe bones in someone's back, even those in the lower back, bulging out, thatperson is too thin. And people wonder why women sometimes feel so muchpressure to lose weight. In the case of the thighless woman who warnsCruise, I suppose it makes some amount of sense, because she's supposed tobe a drug addict. The only thing I can figure out, other than perhaps thecasting director having some serious issues relating to body image in otherpeople, is that the sometimes twisted attendants at the orgy prefer for somereason women who are highly abnormal.My last problem was the sometimes gratuitous use of the word f*ck. Irealise that many people use that word frequently. My problem with it isthat, at least among people I know, when you're talking about sex with your(potential) life partner, you don't usually use such a crude word todescribe having sex with that person. Yet it is used frequently in thismovie in that context. "F*ck" is a word that fits very well to Kidman'sfantasy about the naval guy, but not to her having sex with Cruise. Isuppose this is just my opinion, but I did have a problem with that,although it didn't affect my view of this film much.What I DID like about this film was that the basic idea of the film shouldprovoke discussion among couples. In perhaps a strange phenomenon, Person Aknows that he or she is attracted to people other than Person B, and mayeven have been seriously tempted to act on such feelings, but it doesn'toccur to him or her that Person B is in exactly the same situation. Andsometimes it bothers Person A immensely, just like in this film. I supposethis is because we all know what goes on in our own heads, but we have toguess at what goes on in other people's; we don't know just HOW tempted theywere, or if they acted on the impulse and just aren't admitting it. Itseems to me that this is a subject matter that every couple needs todiscuss, rather than assuming something and living in a fantasy world, untilit all comes crashing down when the illusion is shattered (like in the film-all that stiff about women being "different" than men).Warning: slight spoiler ahead. Some people, including those I saw thismovie with, seem to have missed the point of the HIV+ hooker. My take onthat was to show just what Cruise could have lost by acting on his jealous,untrusting, and perhaps vengeful impulses. Instead, he got lucky- not inthe way one usually would with a hooker, but because his wife called him onhis cell right before he did the deed. Would he have gone through with ithad she not called? I would not have been sure he would, except that thenext evening, he was already to get it on with hooker number 2, until sheinformed him of Domino's bad news. This to me is another good point ofdiscussion: should such things count as infidelity, when a person did notcommit the deed but would have if he had not been interrupted (in the firstcase)? And in the case of Kidman's fantasy with the naval guy: should herinsistence that, had the evening gone by a little differently, she wouldhave had sex with him, be taken as an act of infidelity on her part,orshould she be given the benefit of the doubt that she wouldn't have beenable to go through with it? I think it is important for both parties in arelationship to know where the line gets drawn.I also thought that acting was, for the most part, good. I did not findKidman's laughing fit remotely unbelievably; it was perfectly consisted withmy experience, however limited, with pot smokers. So basically, I thought this movie could have been substantially better(especially considering the number of retakes Kubrick insisted on), but itis still worth watching because it is thought provoking; it makes a personponder both his or her own boundaries as well as those of his or herpartner.

Christine 2012-04-27 11:52:57

The most misunderstood film of the decade

This movie has been widely hated, even in circles where Kubrick is usuallyrevered. One Salon reviewer even argued that _Eyes Wide Shut_ was a preachy,dogmatic monogamist tract, on the shallow basis that something bad happensto every character that seeks extramarital sex. I couldn't disagree more.The film's final lines suggest both that dreams can be equally assignificant as reality, and that a single experience can never define anentire life. Kubrick seems to be saying that a single act of unfaithfulness,whether real or dreamt, does not have to undermine a relationship.Commitment, then, is not a set of arbitrary rules and agreements restrictingyour partner's sex life, as the Tom Cruise character at first seems tothink. This unrealistic, fairy-tale view of his marriage is shattered,plunging him into a surreal, paranoid world of conspiracy and intrigue. Bythe end, however, he has realized (as his wife already has) that commitmentis something renewed from day to day. The film thus points out the dynamicquality of something often considered to be static and constricting, i.e. amarriage, and celebrates commitment without demanding an unrealizable,perfect faithfulness.Despite many critics' assertions to the contrary, _Eyes Wide Shut_ seems tome to be quintessentially Kubrick in its surrealism, its strong use of color(vibrant reds and purples predominate), and its sophisticated theme. Anattentive viewer (unlike the majority of American critics) will see thatthere is much more to this film than a little supposedly explicit sex. Extraprops for Kubrick's ability to create a mood that is magical, erotic, anddeeply paranoid -- an achievement that rivals David Lynch's best work.

rlcsljo 2012-04-27 03:11:52

Finally, an "art film" for (heterosexual) men

Mr. Kubrick seems to be the only person alive that had the audacity to makean "art film" for men. This film was shot in his inimitable *visual* stylewith lots of gorgeous naked females that would have made Helmut Newtonproud.Why is it always the female that has to have internal sexual conflicts overthe slightest wounds to their egos? Why is it the male that always has toact out his sexual frustrations while the female discusses it interminablywith her friends?For those of you with an I.Q. under 140, I will tell you what this film isabout: "Tom Cruise got 'mental' sexual revenge on Nicole Kidman bycommitting adultery in his mind!--he never actually went through with it!". Simple enough?Now sit back and enjoy the *visual* experience that can only come from aKubrick film.This film was the final act one the true geniuses of the cinema, and if youstill dont get it, I suggest you take something else with you when you go tothe movies--your imagination.This film was by and away the best film of the year or of the lastdecade.

tfrizzell 2012-04-24 16:18:27

Darkness Is Even Darker in the Light

SPOILER ALERTStanley Kubrick's swan song is a well-made, hypnotic, and overalloutstanding film which combines elements from all of the late director'searlier films. Doctor Tom Cruise learns one night that his wife NicoleKidman has thought about changing the course of both their lives for aone-night stand with a naval officer who she saw just once and did notevenconverse with. They have a marijuana-induced argument which leads toemotional sparks for Cruise. Now he is out to seek revenge on his wifebecause of her thoughts. What follows is a strange journey into thedeepest, darkest places of New York City and the human psyche, in general.Cruise learns that the daughter of one of his late patients has aninfatuation for him, he almost becomes the victim of a hate crime as youngcollege guys think that he is a homosexual, he is propositioned by abeautiful hooker, and he comes into contact with an old college buddy.Theold friend is mysterious and Cruise becomes intrigued after he learns thatthe friend, now a piano player, has a gig at an unknown location. Cruisegets the information needed to attend the "get-together" and makes thenecessary arrangements. He runs into another strange situation when hegoesto rent a costume for the occasion. When he finally reaches hisdestination, he realizes that what he thought he wanted is not what hewantsat all. The wild and crazy thrill-ride of the night finally comes to aclose, but the next day proves to be even darker and more disturbing.Cruise basically retraces the steps that he took the night before (notnecessarily in the same order) and his "eyes open wide" to see everythingthat had happened the night before. In the end, Cruise realizes that darkelements are even darker in the daylight than in the black of night. Hecomes clean to Kidman and they both realize that sex, excitement, andthrills are fine in the fantasy world, but could be the poorest ofelementsin real life (given the right, or wrong, situation). Kubrick's directionisamazing to say the least. This film is not the ramblings of some old,washed-up film-maker. Kubrick is always sure of where he wants to go andhis screenplay keeps up the suspense, interest, and tenseness of theaudience. I can see why this film took so long to shoot. Thecinematography alone is a sight to behold. Dark streets illuminated byChristmas lights and vivid colors shining through black backgrounds arecommonplace throughout here. The editing and set directions are alsosuperb. Tom Cruise is very strong as well. He dominates the film thefinaltwo hours or so. Nicole Kidman starts strong, but Cruise becomes thefocus.All the supporters are strong as well. Sydney Pollack and Vanessa Shawshine the most. If there was ever a film that was destroyed because oftoomuch hype, it is this one. All the talk of the long shoot, the excessivesexual situations, and the death of Kubrick made this film become amainstream project. The result was an excellent opening weekend, but afailure overall at the box office due to bad word-of-mouth. The averagemovie-goer will not get anything out of this film. This is a deep,thought-provoking film that is somewhat an art-house flick (even though Ihave never been crazy about that term). The publicity about the sexualsituations turned many away and brought in many who did not care aboutanything except seeing a bunch of naked women. That is a real shame. Allthis caused the film to be dismissed by the general public and by theAcademy as well. Overall "Eyes Wide Shut" is an excellent film that ranksreal high on Kubrick's list of credits (I would still have to put "Dr.Strangelove", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and "A Clockwork Orange" ahead ofthis film). With all this said, "Eyes Wide Shut" was probably the bestfilmof 1999 and is one of the best films of the decade. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

2012-04-23 23:09:29

Amazing stuff...totally misunderstood...

I really do think that Eyes Wide Shut is one of the best pictures that Stanley Kubrick made, and was -easily- one of the best films of the 1990's. Easily. It's not suprising that so many people hate it though...of course, this kind of film, with this kind of slow, tense mood is not usually one that people associate themselves with. And Kubricks picture does this is a totally unique and new way. Every movement in the film is accented. I don't know, I think it's amazing. But I don't agree with a number of critics and film journalists who claim that the film has a 'happy' ending. I don't think the ending is even remotely happy. But I wont get into that here. Anyhow...if you willing to just completely submit yourself to a film, then I think you would like this picture.

The-Mighty-Vindicator 2012-04-20 13:13:57

Excellent insight into the world of the Illuminati

Not being a 'Kubrick-cult' fan, I was not too interested in thisfilm...until I heard about its content, exposing the Illuminati rituals- somewhat. It doesn't show all the programming, torture, microchipimplants and demons that are put into the souls/bodies to get them tobecome the slaves that they are, but it does uncover the veil coveringsome things.See reviews by Illuminati researchers online for more.The world is not at it seems and such things as portrayed in this moviedefinitely do go on - more often then one might imagine.Kubrick died 'suddenly' before the movie was released - a daybeforehand? Strange to say the least. Some say that he was punished forrevealing too much. (Interestingly, Aaron Russo of America: Freedom toFascism fame also died after he made his documentary exposing theIlluminati's tools of control, especially in the USA.) A movie welldone and believable because it is so close to reality - the realitythat most do not see and may never see. (Sad though, that there is nosolution given to this mess of Satanic possession, murder andmind-control. Only the Lord Jesus Christ can defeat the Satans of thisworld.)

FunnyMann 2012-04-19 20:50:45

Avoid

It's not a coincidence Stanley Kubrick died the same weekend he finishedediting this turd. He saw how badly he had wasted the last 18 months of hislife and waved the white flag.There could not be a more accurate description of this film than its owntitle. Do not, under any circumstances, go anywhere near this dreck. Youwill regret it. I was physically angry after sitting through it. Avoid itlike The Plague -- if you owed The Plague money. Seriously.

none-156 2012-04-19 07:02:13

Ordinary persons review of disgusting film

I have often suspected that reviewers reviews were based on more thancontent. Now I know it. I do not believe any ordinary person could reviewthis movie and say anything good about it. It was VERY BORING and quitedisgusting. Don't waste your money on it!

Kubrick-32 2012-04-18 07:20:17

Tom Cruise takes a surreal journey after his wife, Nicole Kidman, reveals her passionate, adulterous thoughts.

This final masterpiece of the late genius Stanley Kubrick is bothaudaciousand captivating. Eyes Wide Shut proves to be a must for any Kubrick fanbutis not recommended for the average viewer of escapist entertainment. Myonlycomplaint is that the MPAA made WB change 65 seconds of the film for thegoal of receiving an R rating. Several digital characters were added totheprint during an orgy scene. Their intended purpose was to cover up anyrandom genitalia that might have been exposed. I wouldn't have anyproblemswith this under normal circumstances, but Kubrick had no say in this. Hedied only four days after turning in the final negative to WB. They had noright to change his work. They should have kept it the way it was topreserve his memory.I am sorry for my little rant but I feel very strongly about this. Themoronic MPAA have been on Kubrick's case from Lolita to Clockwork Orange.Despite all of this, the movie is definitely worth seeing. It is fairlylong(159 min. (9 reels)) but it doesn't seem it (unlike Titanic). It producessome comical scenes and lines but will be remembered for its mysteriousandsurreal plot, dialogue and camera shots. A must see for this summer. Igiveit a 9.