Eyes Wide Shut

Rating:
Summary: EYES WANNA SHUT!
Review: THIS MOVIE SUCKED IN MORE WAYS THEN ONE. FIRST OF ALL, TOM AND NICOLE ARE ENDLESSLY TRYING TO KEEP THE MEDIA OUT OF THEIR "BUSINESS" SO THEY DO WAHT---MAKE A HOME PORNO? I LOST RESPECT FOR THESE TWO TALENTED STARS. TOM HAS MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 TO BOUNCE BACK ON. NICOLE IT IS GOING TO TAKE AWHILE TO REGAIN ANY RESPECT YOU HAD IN THE INDUSTRY. YOU DIDN'T JUST PLAY A PART. YOU PLAYED A SLUT, WHO WAS MARRIED, AND INVOLVED A CHILD. THIS MOVIE HAD COMPLETLEY NO MORALS, AND WASN'T AT ALL SEXY. KIDMAN AND CRUISE HAD LITTLE SCREEN TIME TOGETHER, MOST OF KIDMAN'S SCENES ARE IN FLASHBACKS OF SEX WITH A SAILOR...GOT IT..LET'S MOVE ON...IT DIDN'T...SO I AM ASSUMING THAT WAS WHAT THE MOVIE WAS ALL ABOUT?

Rating:
Summary: Sex lives of the living dead...
Review: Amazing that anyone would find anything redeeming about this sad debacle. It's Stanley Kubrick doing (serious) Woody Allen, right down to the Sydney Pollack cameo. Stultifyingly paced, it's the best sleep inducer I've ever experienced. This is the kind of vehicle that mainstream hollywood would have cast Michael Douglas & Kathleen Turner in, & that might have given it some humor & punch. The plot is laughable. It worked fine as a period fantasy, but it sure creaks & flops in a contemporary context, not that this movie has any kind of context at all. It's strangely a-contextual. There's not anything resembling a real live 3-d human being anywhere on the screen. Even all those nude women (no nude men) look like products of a corporate committee. How sad. I'll remember Kubrick for Dr. Strangelove, The Killing & Barry Lyndon, thank you.

Rating:
Summary: Works Pretty Well as a Dream
Review: EYES WIDE SHUT (1999) * * 1/2 Kubrick, Kidman and Cruise spent the better part of a year making a movie with a moral as simple as "appreciate what you have at home (in this case a wife and kid) and don't venture out into unknown territory because there's a lot of evil and misery out there". Even with director Kubrick's notorious propensity for retake after retake, he obviously gave up on getting a convincing performance out of Cruise as a physician. He's as believable as Woody Allen playing a gladiator. Still, Kidman is good and Stanley Pollack is excellent in a supporting role, and if you take the movie as sort of like a dream it works pretty well.

Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's visual masterpiece
Review: This film hit me at more levels than any other film I have ever seen. Lets get out of the way the obvious; this film was shot near flawlessly and is epitomy of how long to carry scenes out and when to cut them short. The acting, and I may be alone on this one, was surberb. I may take much flack for putting Cruise in on that list but, in my view he didn't over or under act his role. Kidman was trasparent in her role and deserved at least an Oscar nomination. I have an idea as too why this film instantly turns off so many. The elitist hierarchal perspective was put forth boldly. This type of bold presentation may turn away people disgusted by that level of social status, that is sad for them because they miss much. The plot is weaves through a Freudian perspective and induces out nuances in every aspect of sexuality. The subtle nature of every turning point in the film is breath taking to watch. The film concludes leaving you anticipatting more and leaving to question was Victor Ziglar convincing to you. Lastly I might add a question, was Cruise's character that much of a threat to people at the masked party or, as I contend, anyones presence was enough to trigger the reaction it did, if so, that eludes that those parties were much more shocking than portrayed and it conveys a last grand cynical viewpoint Kubrick left us to ponder. Thanks Stanley for all your work.

Rating:
Summary: Marriage is always under siege
Review: Eyes Wide Shut is not the self-indulgent, opaque film that I had been led by some reviews to expect. It is clear and focused with an important and worthy theme. Kubrick is exploring the nature of human sexuality in light of recent conclusions derived from evolutionary psychology. The theme can be stated simply: "marriage is a fortress continually under siege." To be able to use Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as his married couple, who not so incidentally are actually married to one another, was quite a coup since it lent accessibility and immediacy to his theme. We are able to catch glimpses of what their married life might be like and to see that marriage played out against the temptations of a cosmopolitan lifestyle.

Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, an attractive, high status, confident male who has always deceived himself about his sexual nature and the nature of women and especially the nature of his wife, Alice. They go to a party and act out some "teasing themselves" roles, as they have undoubtedly done before. Nothing comes of it since they are circumspect people. But the next night stoned on marijuana Alice decides to strip away her husband's smug confidence about her nature and expose to him the truth about feminine sexuality, and so tells him a little story about how she was moved to abandonment by just a glance from a man in uniform. Her expression is so vivid and powerful that Bill, stunned and shocked, begins to imagine this event that never took place, an event Alice has assured him, might well have taken place. As he visualizes, he begins to explore himself as various expressions of human sexuality are thrown his way, the prostitute, the gay-bashing young men, the teenage girl entertaining older men...etc. What he sees behind his mask watching the enactment of a secret medieval pagan ceremony tempts and enlightens him.

This film did not work well for a general audience for several reasons. One, many people did NOT identify with the privileged and glamorous couple. Two, the resolution of the theme was without the usual violence and/or sexual indulgence common in contemporary American cinema, a disappointment for some. Three, many young couples viewing the film together, or at least in light of their own marriages, were made uncomfortable and threatened by being reminded of their own temptations and frustrations. To have the truth of our duplicitous natures rubbed in our faces, as it were, is not something everybody wants to sit still for. Most people lie to themselves about sex and their sexual behavior and especially their hidden sexual desires most of the time. Kubrick wanted us to see how compromised we really are. Finally, some were disappointed by an ending in which we see that we are human, all too human, and we have to accept that and live with it. Bill, realizing what he has done, not so much in action, as in his heart, cries out to Alice, what shall we do now? And she wisely says (because she has already figured this out) "Be grateful," that one day does not make an entire lifetime.

What is wonderful about a film like this is that, instead of going to the movies, fat and comfortable with the steak and wine in our bellies, expecting to be diverted from the irritations of our lives and to be massaged by the story upon the screen (as in say, You've Got Mail (1998) or Titanic (1998)) instead we are confronted with some uncomfortable truths about our own lives, and made to squirm. Our eyes are indeed wide shut, and we kid ourselves and tell ourselves lies about who we are sexually and what we really feel and want. Marriage is a compromise with the world and with our nature. Something is gained and something is lost, but this is no perfect world; and just as it is better to be respectable and a member of the establishment than to sleep in the streets, it is better to marry and maintain that marriage against our animal nature than it is to toss it away.

Kidman is mesmerizing and reinforces her reputation as great talent. As always she becomes the character she is playing. Cruise is clever, cute and has great timing. The sets are crisp and absolutely right for the story, and the dialogue is first class. The sometimes annoying score is appropriate. But this is not a great movie. Some of the scenes could have been sped up, and Kubrick did play the suspense card a little too slowly at times. I would rank it just below the best of Kubrick's work, somewhere between Dr. Strangelove (1964) and The Shining (1980), superior to Spartacus (1960) but not quite on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Certainly we see the mark of the mature artist here in both theme and treatment.

For those interested in an academic discussion of the theme (and possibly where Kubrick got some of his ideas) I recommend the following books on human sexuality from the point of view of evolutionary psychology:

Baker, Robin. Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex (1996);

Diamond, Jared. Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1997);

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan. Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality (1991); Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (1993); and

Russell, Robert Jay. The Lemur's Legacy: The Evolution of Power, Sex, and Love.(1993)

I especially liked the latter two. No longer does a man have to ask, "What does a woman want?" It's pretty clear and understandable. (She wants to have her cake and eat it too.) And of course we always knew what a man wanted. [959 words; 4525 characters]

Rating:
Summary: Are you sure Kubrick made this film?
Review: This movie was just plain bad. I have seen basically all of Stanley Kubricks films, and unfortunatly his last was his worst. The story was just so wierd and twisted I didn't even want to finish watching the movie. With all the hype this movie generated, and the actors in the movie, i thought this would be great. Just turned out to be a stinker.

Hopefully Steven Spielberg can do Kubricks other project AI some justice in the future, but its unfortunate that this movie had to be so bad.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Film of 1999
Review: The title for my review might polarize fellow customers in this section of Amazon.com. No other film last year was more misunderstood than Eyes Wide Shut.

The arc of the story centers around Nicole Kidman's character fantasizing internally -- lusting within her mind -- and Cruise's character attempting to act out his own fantasies externally -- lusting for something real on the streets of New York.

It is important to discuss the feeling and texture of Eyes: Based on Austrian physician and author Arthur Schitzler's (sp?) short-story, a colleague of Sigmund Freud, the film is about dreams; waking and subconscious. The lighting; glow and shine, of the extravagant party, for instance, at the beginning is luxurious: it is not reality -- with harsh lighting -- but rather, of the mind: an escape.

Notice the way characters will come on-screen (like the costume-shop owner), interact with Tom Cruise's character, and exit. Why were they there? What relevance do they have to the story? Stop asking these kinds of questions. Remind yourself of what it is to dream: people, places, and things come and go, without knowing why.

Much has been made of the orgy scene. But the most important element from this area of the movie is when the actors talk to each other from behind their masks. There is sound, and there is voice, but we cannot see the movement of the face when speaking. Easily one of the eeriest and most shockingly disturbing techniques used in Eyes, this is an area where, once again, the feeling of dreaming is represented well; this time, being detached from oneself, becomes the overiding element. This is where we feel that, as in a dream, sometimes events will occur without the power to stop them, until they are carried out fully, and to the end.

Finally, it must be mentioned that the use of sets to depict New York City, instead of filming on location in New York City, was a brilliant move on the director's part. For this is a dream-story, not reality, and anything that represents the latter must be made to look the former: because dreams, in the end, are only representations of what we perceive.

Rating:
Summary: Good and Bad
Review: Tom Cruise is a doctor (who has a lot of time on his hands) and Nicole Kidman is his wife (who has a lot of time on her hands). She has sexual fantasies which she reveals to her husband, and it bothers him so much, that he becomes involved easily with some real sexual situations. Why this should be made to seem necessary is not clear.

However the film is strong on mystery and that keeps you involved to the very end. The end does seem like a long time coming. But all the talk by some critics about what is a dream and what is real life, seems overrated. It's pretty obvious. If you like mystery though, and a little wierdness, this is for you. The sex is only slightly erotic.

As Kubrick's last production and direction before his death, you can detect some absence of his genius toward the end of the picture. Everybody is rubbing their heads and hair, frequently looking down at the floor, as if they have been left on their own to figure out how to behave. You wouldn't notice that if it wasn't too much.

See it for what it is: mystery, fun and games; but don't be mislead by the hype. It's not a great film.

Rating:
Summary: You can't call yourself a Kubrick fan and not like this film
Review: Do you know why? Because Eyes Wide Shut epitomizes Kubrick's filmmaking style. It is the culmination of everything he previously innovated and tested on his earlier movies. It's the definitive Kubrick movie. If you love 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, then how can you all of a sudden say you don't like Eyes Wide Shut? That's like changing your mind in mid-sentence, like saying "I like apples no I don't like apples." If your one of those people then maybe you never really understood why you liked Kubrick's earlier work, or never understood his style but felt obligated to like it because it's classic cinema. Face it. You don't understand Kubrick if you don't like Eyes Wide Shut

Rating:
Summary: Nicole Kidman is the only reason to watch
Review: I watched this movie with every intention and hope of liking it. I have been a fan of every Kubrick film. And after reading other reviews here, I really wish I could be as thoughtful, insightful and come up with a meaningful review for this master of cinema and his last film.

But I can't. I just don't get this film. I don't know if this is true, but I had heard that Kubrick once said he wanted to make a porn movie with star actors. Well, I wouldn't call it porn, but this, I guess, is that vision realized.

The only thing that like about "Eyes Wide Shut" is you get to see beautiful Nicole Kidman naked. And that should really being missing the point entirely for a Kubrick film. But having a few minutes of film in my video collection of one of the world's most gorgeous women erotically and gloriously nude, is the only pleasure I derive from watching this movie. Tom Cruise is a lucky man. But as a viewer of this film, I didn't feel quite so lucky except for the glimpses of Ms. Kidman. Still not enough for most people to want to buy this film. But if you're like me buy it just for the nude minutes of Nicole and skip the rest of the film. And then buy other films like "Clockwork Orange" "Full Metal Jacket" "2001" "Dr. Strangelove" , etc., and watch Kubrick at his best.