Rating: 
Summary: Neurotic Thiller
Review: Although this is not the best Kubrick film, nor my favourite (Strangelove and 2001 would be hard to beat), it was nonetheless ASTOUNDING. the most common >non-venomous< complaint about this film (which was stated in an above review) was that "i just didn't understand it". the majority of the film takes place internally; within the mind of the protagonist. he obsesses about comments his wife makes about infidility, and this obsession compels him to do irrational things. the audience of the film is drawn along with him (as only Kubrick can do), and thus some confusion is placed upon the viewer. but it is a ride like no other; full of atmosphere and imagry, and emotion and emptiness. in this day and age when hollywood films and the american audience is so used to spoon-fed, mindless entertainment, i think most people wouldn't enjoy a film like this that DOES involve you as a viewer; make you think as you watch or -- egads! even AFTER you have seen it. if you thought The Matrix was an involving intellectual masterpiece, you probably WILL hate this film. and Blade Runner and 12 Monkeys, and damn near anything that does involved 100 bd explosions and gunfire. Eyes Wide Shut IS a masterpiece. it is paced a bit like a Pavana, and steps quite slowly and very softly. but the dance is beautiful, and one that lingers. this is by NO MEANS an "erotic" thriller (as has been reviewed in the media; nay -- more of a "neurotic" thiller. and it will not leave you untouched.
Rating: 
Summary: Final Masterpiece
Review: Although I am a very loyal Kubrick fan, I enter all films with an open mind. Eyes Wide Shut is a tale of sexual obsession and jealously that is at all times gripping, and darkly humorous. I will say it is not for all tastes because it is a somewhat ambiguous film (like all Kubrick's works) and is cleverly paced. I think this was a very personal project that Mr. Kubrick created the way he wanted to, and the result is worth multiple viewings.
Rating:
Summary: I just don't understand.
Review: Why do so many people dislike this film? It was released to such mixed reviews that I was slightly hesitant to see it (although I knew I would eventually because I admire Kubrick so much). However, once I had seen it, I had immediately dismissed the negative reviews as nonsense. I honestly, truly, don't see how you can't find something beautiful in this movie. There are so many great things in it.First, the thing that strikes you immediately is the direction and visual style. From Kubrick we should expect nothing less than perfection - and we get it with Eyes Wide Shut. This is, hands down, one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. The use of color and direction is spellbinding in it's power and intensity. The story itself is mesmerizing. The whole movie drifts by in a sort of dream-like state, and the events sort of flow together so that after seeing it you'd be hard-pressed to recall the exact "plot." JUST LIKE A DREAM. This movie is based on a story called Traumnovelle, which means dream story. There is a plot, but it drifts into tangents and pieces which are finally tied back together at the end. The performances are really quite good. Tom Cruise is very good as the lost Dr. Bill. Nicole Kidman is equally good or even better as his wife Alice. Her role is small, but every scene she is in she commands. Lastly, I thought I'd remark on the "score." It basically consists of a simple, but truly eerie, piano melody which is constantly repeated, over and over, throughout most of the film. It always seems to come at the perfect moments, and I thought complemented the film very well. Eyes Wide Shut is a true masterpiece. It is easily one of 1999's best movies, if not the best. The imagery is stirring and provocative, and you will want to watch the film again and again. One of the most haunting, amazing, and powerful movies I have ever seen. R.I.P. Stanley Kubrick. He will be missed.
Rating: 
Summary: Boring!
Review: A catchy theme-tune does not a good film make. It didn't workfor Mission Impossible and it wasn't enough to make this filmwatchable. I hope Nicole and Tom fulfilled some sort of sexual fantasy in the filming of this because it sure isn't going to fulfill anyone elses .. END
Rating:
Summary: Worst Movie I've Ever Seen
Review: No plot....too much of Nicole loving her body....no storyline whatsoever. I usually like Tom Cruise, however, adding him with his wife made for a bad combination. Tom, learn from your mistakes. No more movies with the wife....
Rating:
Summary: Eyes Wide Shut lives up to its title
Review: You need to keep your eyes wide shut through this very boringand tedious film. Thank god I didn't waste my time to go see it atthe theater and instead waited for it to come out on video because I surely would have been upset having had spent 3 hours in a theater watching this. There were so many unanswered questions and conversations seemed to take hours instead of seconds. There was no real purpose to this film I thought. It just dragged on and on and on. There were a few things that took me by surprise, but nothing really worthwhile. And the annoying piano music which was also evident in his film 'The Shining' was like listening to fingernails on a blackboard. It was neither "thought provoking" nor a "masterpiece," but rather a very overrated attempt at film making. Why people are calling this brilliant and Kubrick's finest film ever I'll never understand.
Rating:
Summary: Stanley Kubrick is God
Review: This movie was quintessential Kubrick. It is dark, twisted andfunny. I have no doubt Kubrick had many more projects in his mindbefore he died, so this cannot be looked upon as his final gesture to humanity before he left earth, but rather another in a list of strange, dark, precise, and elegant films. Stanley Kubrick had the ability to disturb us, make us laugh, and make us cry with one shot, and this movie is no exception. People forget that one of Kubrick's greatest gifts was his films' lasting power. I would wager that nearly everyone who hated this movie will watch it again some day and finally enjoy it, and while they may not completely understand it (I personally believe, or at least hope, that Kubrick's films were not meant to be fully understood), they will at least see why I love it. But I'm a Kubrick fan. I loved all of his films, and perhaps in my mind (as the title of my review states), Stanley Kubrick can do no wrong. Nevertheless, this movie is great, and I found the interviews contained on the DVD edition very enlightening.
Rating: 
Summary: Thirty years (at least!) too late.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Is Nicole Kidding?
Review: I thought this was the worst movie I have seen so far this year. The sex stuff was good but put it together with a plot that one can follow and an ending that makes sense.
Rating:
Summary: Correction to my previous review
Review: In my previous review, I noted that this DVD features a "pan and scan" version of the film. I have been told that this is incorrect. So that others are not put off by this, please see the comment that I received below: "The video/DVD release is NOT a pan and scan. In fact, it shows the whole 1:1.37 35mm negative area, and you end up with more picture area than the cinema release (which is a 1:1.85 slice from the centre section of the negative). Kubrick composed for both formats when he shot the movie, and the DVD/video is not compromised in any way. In a sense you get "more picture" with the DVD/video than cinema goers! Basically, Kubrick was careful enough to make sure than both audiences get an uncompromised version - he composed for 1:1.37 AND 1:1.85."
| 
