Rating: 
Summary: B O R I N G ! ! !
Review: I THINK KUBRICK DIED OF BOREDOM WHILEST MAKING THIS MOVIE. If you want to see Kidman and Cruise walk around for several hours lookin' good--this movie is for you. But do you care about them or what happens to them? No!
Rating: 
Summary: A Big Disappointment!
Review: I was looking forward to watching this movie with great anticipation, being a long-time Kubrick fan. What a huge disappointment! In brief, the movie was overly long, the plot disjointed and I never really felt much for Cruise or Kidman. It's too bad Kubrick's final movie had to be this one. Don't waste your time, rent or buy Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket instead.
Rating:
Summary: Frustrating but not without merit
Review: EYES WIDE SHUT is technically brilliant (this is Kubrick after all) but pretentious (again, the stamp of Kubrick). I found it extremely interesting to watch from a formal standpoint but frustrating otherwise. The movie has a magnificent waking-nightmare quality that is distinctly Kubrickian. It would not look out of place in a double-bill with THE SHINING, despite their surface differences (though thematically they have much in common). The opening party sequence is one of the most aesthetically beautiful pieces of filmmaking I've seen in some time. It's difficult to judge the acting since the entire enterprise appears to take place in some alternate dream-reality where everyone is very weird and buttoned-up. There are no characters for the actors to play, there are simply ideas for characters, constructs to represent different aspects of the film's central idea (the uncertain nature of marital trust). In this respect Tom Cruise is sufficient for his role. Since he's all surface to begin with the part doesn't tax his limited abilities. As well, Kidman has no trouble playing the shallow, casually cruel wife. So, what to say? I didn't hate the movie but I'm not sure I'd want to watch it again. Unfortunately, with his final film Kubrick seems to have run out of interesting things to say. This paucity of depth is sad coming from the man who gave us 2001, FULL METAL JACKET and DR. STRANGELOVE. Oh well, you can't hit it out of the park every time. Too bad he didn't have time for just one more...
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing final chapter in Kubrick's legacy
Review: In terms of the visuals in this film, it's pure Kubrick: Long, sweeping shots, brilliant use of color (especially orange lit rooms juxtaposed with bright blue windows, etc), extensive (and very effective) use of silence in the soundtrack. The story line kept me interested throughout. It's a Kubrick work. You have to expect to THINK while watching this FILM (not movie). Anyone viewers expecting typical Hollywood fare should look elsewhere. The acting, however, left quite a bit to be desired. Nicole Kidman over-acted terribly for the first 2/3 of the film. Cruise did a decent job, however. I would have given this work 4 stars, but the poor acting by Kidman brought it down a notch.
Rating:
Summary: Snore
Review: This is NOT a date movie. Except for the awesome sex scene and Nicole writhing around, there was not much to keep a man busy. My wife was so turned off I couldn't convince her to get romantic, even after all of the chocolate we had. The story telling was long and drawn out. Nicole does a horrible job portraying this woman; the worst acting I've seen from her. Tom played a believable part but there was too much of 'Tom Cruise' in the character. If..........I...........had.............to........ see.............it.............again............it............would...........be.............by...........myself.........
Rating:
Summary: Sloooooow
Review: I assume the excessive amount of nudity was to compensate for the absence of an interesting story. At times, the movie progressed soooo slow that even someone with an attention deficit disorder wouldn't have missed anything.
Rating: 
Summary: Its great but give us the whole thing.
Review: This movie is a great movie. It tells a unique story in a unique way that some will love and understand and others will find slow and confusing. My only beef with the movie is not releasing the directors cut on DVD. Show us the movie as it was orriginally made. I believe that the editing of the orgy scene disrupts some of the artistic integrity of the film and it takes a little off of the punch that the film delivers. This is Kubricks final film and I believe one of his best and like the people in England I believe that America deserves to see the unedited version. However if you want to see this film the edited scenes take little away from the story but we should have the choice to see it either way.
Rating:
Summary: Director's intention was WAY different from what you think
Review: 1) The film definitely WAS NOT designed to be shocking or even entertaining and there's NO even slight resemblance to "Basic Instinct", etc. In fact, if you want entertainment, Kubrick's art is not really your cup of tea - all of his films are depicting not the moment's rush, but eternal meditation. And they are too complicated for the lovers of all-nation hits. 2) Does anybody at all think WHY Kidman & Cruise? Such an amazing casting is the only way to grip the audience when you're about to tell it smth really important. 3) But this important is not to be seen, it's what it DOES to you, and absolutely without kind permission of your mind. 4)Hence, accept the fact that sometimes making movies is not about telling stories, and general audience may not be able to understand the 'morals'. Moreover, often understanding is totally impossible on the existing cultural level, so the message should be indocrinated. That's the case of 'Eyes Wide Shut'. 5)Please please don't be that mad at Stanley. Remember that we always tend to hate what we don't understand.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed masterwork.....
Review: What's a movie supposed to do besides entertain you? Could it be that they're supposed to make you question things about life, trust, love, sex, marriage, the American Dream? Despite the pacing, this will have you--if you are in any sense thoughtful, or introspective--wondering a lot of things, in the film and in life. Stunning from frame one, it never relinquishes it's tight hold on the senses of the viewer. But that's why it's an misunderstood masterwork. It draws you in and teases like an impressionist painting. You get too close to it, you begin to see flaws. Things never are totally what they appear to be, nothing's ever all good or all bad, black or white, I mean, can you really trust what you think you see? Is the image of the good life, the good life? We all do kinda take things for face value, that's for sure. And movies are reflective of some of our overall views. But movies are colored light images projected on a screen, right? Real or unreal? EWS messed with one's mind on several levels--did you accept rich man's Sydney Pollack's explanation of the mansion's going's on? Plenty of Freudian slips and verbal faux pas, there--evil incarnate, there. Did Nicole have an affair with the naval officer (even in thought) or not? Was Tom's (although we want to side with the integrity of the main character) answer's to Nicole's questions--ie, he never once felt enticed by a female patients body even in the clinical setting--completely honest? Will men ever be as honest as women? Will women ever be as dishonest as men? Or are they equally prone to being corrupted/corruptible/incorrigible? Were you perplexed as to how provocative those "blue lust shots" of Nicole with her naval officer were--even if they were taken for the cinema, Tom & Nicole are married in real life and it must've been quite a surreal experience having to go through it, for all parties involved. Notice how Kubrick's use of color punctuated certain passions...particularly red. Almost like an Ingmar Bergman film. There are little nuances in Kidman's acting (take a look at "To Die For" and "Malice", by the way) that makes one believes that she "knew" of Tom's goings on at the mansion, (hell, she may have even been one of the masked sex slaves), at the hooker's apartment, even when he is confronted at Pollack's--she didn't have to be told, but the fact that Tom DID tell, however, sets well with the American filmgoer's desire for a linear, "and they lived happily ever after" story... at last, we want to believe our certain accepted notions will never be challenged. But they are, and they always are...and, sadly, most of us would rather keep our eyes wide shut to these challenges... For those of us who don't mind the challenge, the questions and the debates, this provocative film is gonna be in our mental libraries for years to come...
Rating: 
Summary: Funny how misunderstood it is....
Review: It makes me laugh when i read all the reviews about how people were disappointed were by the lack of "shock" this movie provided. Honestly, if Kubrick had decided to engage us in a sexually shocking film, why would he have chosen a book entitled "Dream Story?" Or titled the movie "Eyes Wide Shut?" Kubrick has always titled his movies very deliberately, and he didn't just slip up here. Kubrick seeks to examine the realms of dream and reality, especially in those times where the line between them becomes blurry. This is the artistic content Kubrick sought to explore, and he did that just fine. What better way to question reality then letting a man (Cruise) wander through every man's greatest fantasy? Those who were disappointed by this film should go rent a Penthouse flick, because they're clearly interested only in having their libido satisfied. This is a movie that uses sex as a tool for greater ideas, and in that respect, Eyes Wide Shut uses it expertly.
| 
