Rating: 
Summary: Not Up to Par (for Kubrick, that is)
Review: Overall, "Eyes Wide Shut" was a disappointment compared to Kubrick's great work--"2001 A Space Odyssey", "Clockwork Orange", "Dr. Strangelove"--though it started out promising enough with a tour de force performance by Nicole Kidman in the film's early episodes, and a breathtaking "ritual"/orgy that climaxed the film's first half. The second half was all Tom Cruise, and therein lies the film's weakness. Not only is Cruise nowhere near the actor that Nicole Kidman is in terms of sheer talent, but the story rather falls apart, the conclusions reached neither convincing nor even very tight. The latter half of the film deteriorates into meandering nonsense as Tom Cruise tries to solve the "mystery" behind what happened to him and others who attended the orgy...you'd get no less from the story if you simply turned the sound off...the only benefit (if you're a Tom Cruise fan) is the privelege of seeing his face--hardly enough for me. It's too bad, too, because Kubrick deserved to leave this world differently than half-brilliant/half-mediocre.
Rating: 
Summary: No plot
Review: The movie had no plot and story line.I mean yes it was about real life, but it is a sleeper.I wouldn't waste my time on this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly Good!
Review: To tell you the truth, I really didn't think I was going to like this movie. I really don't like Stanley Kubrick's movies, the only one that was good was The Shining. (1980) Cruise and Kidman do great in this smart and crafty movie which keeps you thinking what's going to happen at the end. Very suspensful, very good --- Kubrick's best.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Buy, Rent, or Watch This
Review: I should have followed the advice of the title of this movie and kept MY EYES SHUT for this movie. This movie made "Howard the Duck" look like a classic.If you are a wanna be upper east side, art loving, $8 coffee drinking, 35 year old, pierced nose person and want to discuss Stanley Kubrick's incredible direction and flow of the movie, buy this movie. But if you want to be entertained, run from this movie. It's not thought provoking, I think this is Kubrick's practical joke to the world.
Rating:
Summary: It's a shame to censor the film even on DVD
Review: Stanley Kubrick's last, and perhaps most intiment film isprobably better to be seen on smaller screen. Reason one: Kubrickpreffered it to be seen on full screen, 1:1.37 aspect ratio, which is not the way the film was usually screened in theatres. Reason two: to achieve his dream of making a film as simply as possible, Kubrick tried almost not to use artificial "movie" lighting on the set, and force-proccessed the negative and prints. This caused a lot of granes and desaturated colors in most of the dupe prints used in theatrical presentations. Only journalists who could see prints of better generation could really apprecieate the beauty of the photography and the inteligence in the use of colors. Reason three: it's such a complex movie you really can't understnad it in one viewing. Reason four, which would have been only applicable in the US and Canada, was the digital modification to get an R rating. BUT, the studio preffered to release this mutilated version even on DVD! This is really a disgrace for the American public. The Studio should release the original version, as MGM did on LAST TANGO IN PARIS. The DVD special feature is interviews with Stiephen Spielberg (I don't know why) as well as the stars of the film Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Cruise is surprisingly honest about his difficulties in making this film, nothing like what he used to say a year ago to promote the film. Kidman shows what an inteligent and capable actress she really is inspite of her pretty figure. This film, I think is really her movie. Kubrick, who always portraid men rather than women (even LOLITA was more about James Mason character than Sue Lyon), finally portraid a living woman with depth, full of desires and fears of sexuality. The mistake, I think, of the old master is that he is still showing too much of the husband (who is rather boring) and not showing enough of her. EYES WIDE SHUT is a flawed film, perhaps. But it still is filled of poignant moments and passion, and one of the greatest achievement in cinema to describe human psyche. END
Rating:
Summary: Minds Wide Shut !
Review: This is the first movie in my film watching history, when asked by someone what I thought of it, I like to answer with a yes or no or maybe; I just love to get a rise out of them by answering just the opposite of what they thought of it ! It's JUST A MOVIE ! There may be questions or plotholes and bizarre scenes with meaningless situations big enough to compare with the Holland Tunnel... The fact of the matter is, and for the record, for me personally it was pure sublime entertainment.It was a sleeper movie (pun intended for some) in which the pshychological aspect of it kept me hooked.I often found myself asking how far will Tom Cruise's character go to spite his wife even though she was only unfaithful to him in thought ? True, the action, well, there was none, took form in the mental sense keeping the viewer wondering who would commit the final physical act of deception. Eyes Wide Shut posed a very endearing and timeless psychological and moral question for not just married couples but for everybody. The question is whether or not we can differentiate between our fantasies and desires versus our needs and wants (not just in the carnal sexual sense) ? In other words, do we as humans sometimes find ourselves blurring the distinction between fiction and fact ? Of course we do. The "real" trick is separating ourselves from actually carrying out these dangerous desires before the damage is done and letting them turn into an obsession bearing remorseful consequences... The scenery or sets (particularly the mansion of the masked society) was very artistic in the sense as though I felt I was looking at a surrealistic painting. The atmosphere was very reminiscent of an Enigma music video. The soundtrack was nowhere near the brilliance of a Vangelis score. Yet, with the simple 2 or 3 piano keynotes, much emotion and drama was conveyed. Do I highly recommend this movie to everyone (colleagues, friends, family, etc.)? Of course not. Is it a waste of any viewer's time ? Depends on the viewer's time and mind...
Rating: 
Summary: A good Kubrick MOVIE 4 Star(DR S and FMJ are 5 star Kubrick)
Review: I will say that everytime I pan Tom Cruise he comes out with a great movie. This is probably the best acting preformance to date from Tom.His character is so flawed and beleiveable. Tom love his wife in the movie but is a man who finds that unexpectedly his wife has sexual desires outside there marriage. Nicole Kidman preformance was much better than ever before. She was meant to play her role in this film, she is a strong and femine, but even though loyal to her husband temped by lust. Her admission of her desire for other men starts Cruise off on a strange but interesting adventure when his wife tells him that she once saw a stranger so atractive that had he asked she would have left Cruise for the him. Every encounter leads Cruise to see a chance for infidelity (I will say no more). This is Good Kubrick )just a step below FULL METAL JACKET and DR STANGELOOVE This movie is not for the prudish or those who are not interested in sexual appetites of men and women.
Rating:
Summary: Simple movie, so I'll keep my review simple too!
Review: Simple movie, so I'll keep my review simple too! If you're a pseudo-intellectual who loves to read meaning into anything called 'art', this film is for you. If you're looking for a film for it's entertainment value, then you should look someplace else. My take on the film is that it's a simple plot where a man's wife reveals to him that she's had sexual urges that were so strong that she would have thrown away her family if she had been given the chance to fulfill them. This revelation stuns the husband and then as time passes, numerous women suddenly begin to throw themselves at his feet further challenging his view of his wife's sexual needs and urges. More time passes and now in his mind's eye his wife is ready to bed every man she meets, so either out of spite or maybe a sense of freedom, he begins to explore his 'needs'. The movie ends with the infamous orgy session which didn't really have anything to do with the rest of the story line but it did add a bit of much needed drama. End point: A lot of hype, not much else.
Rating:
Summary: Another case of Gross Misrepresentation by the Money-Making
Review: Machine called Hollywood. Many viewers felt cheated and frustrated; they are ready to trash this film. These people should be angry, but not at the author. People, who do not usually watch Kubrick, fell for the promise of sex. Well, guess what? There is no sex, not really....This film is not about orgies or sexual excesses. These elements were used as metaphors for frailty of human mind and social excesses. The opening scene shows Cruise and Kidman rushing off to some "socializing event", leaving their young daugther with a baby-sitter. So, there you have it-a moral. Another moral comes when Cruise is wearing a mask in certain scenes. As Oscar Wilde put it: "Give the man a mask, and he will show you his face". I think Kubrick was striving to demonstrate that. I like the film, but the ads called it "Kubrick's best film". It is not. This may be his last film, but definitely not the best one. I also did not like some very long shots and Kubrick's choice of Cruise and Kidman for their respective roles. I do realize that these things might be flaws only in my subjective view. Still, I give this film 3 stars. Watch this film, but don't expect too much... If you generally don't like Kubrick's films, then don't waste your time on this one. If you want to learn about his films, then start with the earlier films first.
Rating:
Summary: it is veryexeciting
Review: i see allmost of nikol's movie
|
