Rating: 
Summary: SMOOTH, FUNNY, OCCASIONALLY OVER THE TOP, BUT WONDERFUL.
Review: Whether you are in a relationship or not, and whether or not you dig Kubrick's works, this is an interesting movie to watch. Even if others tell you that the director goes berserk with some scenes (and one could say he does, for e.g., a vivid masked orgy in a posh mansion with Gregorian chants in the background), and even if you are otherwise accustomed to the cut-crazy NYPD Blue type of rush modern cinematography, which is diametrically opposed to the ethereally unfolding cinema of Kubrick, there is something very deeply moving about the nuances of this movie's identifiable characters on the verge of marital collapse. The film is actually inspired by the 1926 novel "Traumnovelle" by Arthur Schnitzler, which was based in the decadent Vienna of the 1920's (sidenote: highly recommended book, now sold under the label of "Eyes Wide Shut" right here on Amazon). Of course Kubrick's version is based instead in modern Manhattan and studies the life of a well-to-do couple (Kidman, Cruise). The story unfolds with all the smooth pizzazz of almost any Kubrick venture, effortlessly going from domestic discord to sexual obsession to murder mystery. Cruise, playing a doctor with all the right connections and a very good lifestyle, is convinced that his wife is deeply loyal to him. Until one day she confesses how she had once contemplated having an affair with a naval officer whom she had only glimpsed across a hotel lobby. This confession comes after an upscale party where they both found themselves in the hands of lustful but unsuccessful seducers. The roots of his faith shaken, Cruise examines his own lusts. After an unconsummated dalliance with a Greenwich Village prostitute, he eventually finds himself in an ominous mansion where wealthy masked participants indulge in dark ritual orgies, and perhaps even murder. But in a world where faithfulness is revealed to be little more than an illusion, can evil be any more substantive? There is really very little that can be said about the movie's weaknesses. Perhaps the orgy ritual may come across to some as a little baffling but I believe it very stunningly symbolizes our inherent instincts for philandaring. That the unrueful participants should feel necessary to don masks and hide their identity while doing their deeds only underscores their haplessness in the face of their desires. The movie will keep you on your toes, and just when you think you have figured it out you will be presented with something uncanny. The denouement, in fact the very last word before the final credits roll, is a strikingly apt summary of almost all marital relationships. Come to think of it, the whole movie sports dialog that is sharp and crisp, one of the reasons I watch movies more than once, which makes this DVD a very worthy purchase. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Take another look
Review: The log line used for AMERICAN BEAUTY ("look closer") is even more appropriate for Kubrick's last movie. EWS really rewards repeated viewings. While some might prefer eye surgery to sitting through it twice, other are sure to be surprised at how many things escape first glance. An example - Cruise tears out a story from the New York Post and later shows it to Pollack. The headline reads "EX-BEAUTY QEEN IN HOTEL DRUGS OVERDOSE". Hmmm. That's a rather odd way to word it, even for the Post. Kind of like the frustrating non-logic of a dream. But Cruise is supposed to be awake, right? When I first saw this scene, I remember being impatient at how long the camera stayed on the headline, twice. Turns out Kubrick was giving us extra time to notice a less than subtle visual clue, yet most viewers, myself included, completely airballed it. Other curious touches: * Cruise and Thomas Gibson, real and imagined lovers to the dead man's deranged daughter, are shot in exact reverse/mirror-image angles as they enter her apartment. * At the orgy, the master of ceremonies wears a red cloak and is flanked by two men in blue cloaks, a inverted image of the couple's bedroom, where red curtains frame both sides of a blue window. * As others have noted, red repeatedly signals an invitation down another blind alley: the door of the hooker's apartment, the jeep that drives Cruise up to the house, the arrow lines painted on the hospital's revolving doors, etc. I didn't notice any of these things the first time I saw the movie. I don't think I was alone, either. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the title might be a pretty accurate description of how most people look at EWS on the first go-round. There's no question the critics took a bath on this one. They were practically shoving each other aside to take potshots, most of which tried to emphasize how unsophisticated Kubrick's attitudes on sex are compared to their own. I heard someone gripe, "Kubrick filmed an orgy where no one's allowed to have fun." OK, you noticed. Now what do you think about it? Think maybe he did it on purpose, and if so, what do you think it means? This kind of inquiry, which pretty much all of Kubrick's best films invite, was never explored by the majority of the "experts". The good news is that the film will last longer than the critics. It's a safe bet EWS will be discussed and reappraised for as long as people are talking, writing and, knock on wood, thinking about movies.
Rating:
Summary: Eyes Wide Shut: My Thoughts 5 Years Later
Review: The following is an outline of my reading of Eyes Wide Shut. I don't know if I'd say that Eyes Wide Shut takes place in a dream state, but rather that it blurs the line between reality and projection (in the Freudian sense). Its not so much that the events in the film are not actually happening, but that Kubrick has put images on film that have to be read as questionable with regard to their true "reality" as they are skewed through the POV of Bill (and on a lesser scale, Alice) to extreme extents throughout. Granted its Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, but does everyone that each character meets truly want to sleep with them at first glance? Or instead, are these just the projections of each character's own narcissism onto the people they come across? Or at the end of the day is it a little of both? For Alice, it appears to be a type of projection that she ultimately finds disgust with. She believes that both the man at the party and the man in her flashback want to sleep with her because deep down inside she wants to sleep with them too. Again maybe they did (more likely in the case of the man at the party) and again maybe they didn't (more likely in the case of the man in her story). Then there is her reaction to her dream that parallels Bill's experience. At the end of the day (while she still may want to do it) she seems disgusted by such events/desires/projections, but at the same time doesn't hide the fact as much as Bill that such desires exist. In the case of Bill, the events/desires/projections dive into territory that is far more taboo (prostitutes, underage girls, orgies, potential lovers already in a relationship, etc., etc.), and while "like" may be too strong of a word, I think its clear that on at least some level he is excited by such possibilities (as well as much more secretive about them). The orgy scares Bill too, but for much more different reasons than it does Alice. The orgy and the aftermath of it are especially important, in that it builds upon this groundwork of projection as a central theme within the film in a different area. Is the prostitute really killed, are people really after him and the Piano player, or is there a strong chance that it too is mostly just in his head? Does Alice really suspect anything sexual just because she found a mask, does Bill just assume that she assumes something sexual because she found the mask, or maybe the mask isn't even really there, but rather just Bill's own projection that he thinks she knows something's up? At the same time, Kubrick doesn't seem to be simply diving into this territory for kicks and giggles, but he also uses it to honor the institution of marriage. From his POV, marriage protects each partner from the taboos of/releated to sex that can be read as "dangers;" STDs, drugs, prostitution, ruining families (both your own and your lover's), pedophile, etc., etc. Given Kubrick's detached personality, yet extreme closeness to his family I think its clear to see where he was coming from and why he decided to make this film. Furthermore, in going back to the beginning, in addition to protecting one another from these outside dangers, it is also the institution of marriage that helps protect each partner from the inside dangers of their own egos by keeping them in check as a result of the various sacrifices that are made in marriage (as well as in any relationship in general). Its not so much these statements themselves that are unique, (its basically just Psychoanalysis 101), but that Kubrick is able to present such statements through a much more interesting and powerful process; a process that is largely visual, and through a script that doesn't really directly deal with such subjects at face value. Finally, I think this is Kubrick's most emotional film of his career. While I love many of his films, I don't think there's much of a question that he's very detached from most of the commentary he makes in them. I think its a different case here. There is still that detachment, but I think his own emotion creeps out of that detachment as well. Whether or not you agree/like what the film has to say, the more you experience it, the more you can appreciate just how much it likely meant to him. For Dorothy the Rainbow is all and her head. I think the same goes for Bill, Alice and Stanley. ****, (10/10)
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's final puzzle, a mix of psychology and poetry
Review: This film affords many interpretations, which is exactly what the man wanted. If you want proof that Kubrick was a brilliant man and knew what he was doing, read any quote of his in any book about him. He makes films for people who are not programmed to judge movies based on Hollywood formulas. This is Kubrick's most artistic and lyrically crafted film. It is just beautiful to watch regardless of anything else. There is plenty to think about too, especially for psychology fans. Schnitzler was after all a cohort of Freud. Notice how every sexual encounter Bill has in the movie mixes the specters of eros and thanatos, what Freud calls the life instinct and the death instinct. Look for signs of death mixed with the erotic aspects. There's plenty. Look how there is a Christmas tree in every scene except the orgy, and in one scene, Bill turns off the Christmas lights. What is the significance? Janet Maslin from the New York Times called Kubrick's movies "irresistible intellectual catnip", and she's right, there is much to mull over in this exquisite film. As for the aspect ratio, RELAX everyone. Read the note Amazon.com has. Kubrick wanted it this way. You're not missing any picture, you're actually seeing more than you saw in the theater. In the theater the top and bottom were cut off, now they have been restored. Take two pieces of paper and mat the top and bottom of Eyes Wide Shut. Voila, instant widescreen. It works with The Shining and Full Metal Jacket too. Kubrick composed his shots for theater and television viewing. As usual, he is about eight steps ahead of the average moviegoer.
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's Final Film
Review: Stanley Kubrick was never known for a being a director whose films instantly catered to the masses. Even popular films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and THE SHINING generated tons and tons of controversy over their meaning, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE shocked people with its elliptical approach to violence. Kubrick's last film, EYES WIDE SHUT, released three and a half months after his untimely death in 1999, held true to form. There is no unanimity. In my opinion, however, this kind of debate makes for a great film. On that score alone, that makes EYES WIDE SHUT a masterpiece. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman star in this disturbing psychosexual drama about an upscale Manhattan couple--Kidman a typical housewife, Cruise a good doctor--who become torn over conflicting views of love and sex after Kidman spots her husband playing up to a pair of models at a party held by a good friend (Sydney Pollack). And when Cruise is called out late one night to comfort the wife of a client who has just died, he will soon find out not only how thin the line between men and women really is, but also how blurry the difference is between dreams and reality... Collaborating on the screenplay with Frederick Raphael, which was inspired by Arthur Schnitzler's 1920s novel "Traumnovelle", Kubrick turns and twists EYES WIDE SHUT into something extraordinarily complex, something that cannot be understood with just one simple viewing. Like all of his films before it, EYES WIDE SHUT must be seen more than once to get the full impact. Even then, it is extremely ambiguous and deceptive, forcing the viewer to analyze in his or her mind what the exact nature of dreams really are. This kind of ambiguity and the very fluid shots and Kubrick's handling of the dialogue, much closer in tone to the way real people talk, makes for a film that is incredibly long (at 159 minutes) and, for some rather boring. But Kubrick's films have never been typical Hollywood fare anyway, and in fact have often been hugely influential on other directors (Spielberg, DePalma, Scorsese, etc.). In the end, EYES WIDE SHUT was a typical way for Kubrick to depart this world--to leave us with yet another film of his to be debating as the years and decades go by.
Rating: 
Summary: Eyes Wide Shut - mine definately were!
Review: This film was so long and so boring not to mention disgusting. I still do not know why I got through it. All the hype and for what, nothing. Lame story equals lame acting, I mean Kidman and Cruise did so much better than this when they did Far and Away, now that was a decent enough film. Avoid this film like the plague please.
Rating: 
Summary: A master's swan song.
Review: Kubrick's mysterious and compelling swan song reinforces, one last time, the fact that he was a cinematic giant in complete control of his art. But his untimely death before the film's theatrical release also raises the intriguing question of how different this film would have been had Kubrick lived to make final adjustments, as he was wont to do with each of his films. While we were left with no answer to that question, we were left with a psychologically stirring dream epic which is all Kubrick, rough cut or not: the gorgeous sets, the luscious photography, the luminous lighting, the bold colors, the deliberate acting -- the movie is so Kubrick that Kubrick tends to overwhelm everything else, including the story and its characters, which leads to its major faults. Cruise and Kidman are a sexually dysfunctional couple who drift further apart when the wife confesses to having sexual fantasies and dreams about other men, even at the expense (in her dreams) of sexually humiliating the husband. This sets the husband on a two-night journey through the dark recesses of New York City (really London, trying to look awfully hard like NYC to the point of distraction, like the gimmick where a yellow cab is seen in nearly every outside shot). In his journey he meets some normal and bizarre characters and rashly crashes a secret event, a decision he soon regrets and which starts him on a slippery slide into paranoia. Although there are plot holes and illogical events in several places (which may be attributed to the dream tone of the entire film), the execution by this master is exhilarating and hypnotic, making his last film a cinematic delight and one which may warrant subsequent visits to mine all of its riches.
Rating:
Summary: Where is Kubrick's version of the film?
Review: Do I have to order the film in Europe to see Kubrick's final masterpiece the way he wanted me to see it? Those censors can take their censure
and shove it... You can blow up a guy's head, use the name of God to make bucks and get an PG-13 for satanic violence like in "Lord Of The Rings". You can do all of this and more and still get an R-rated. What you can't do is show a woman naked! That's bad, that's obscene, that's immoral! America should be the land of the free! The freedom of speech! The right to chose. So, why are we letting MPAA chose what's good and what's bad for us? I suggest a restoration of "Eyes Wide Shut",
shown in its original unblurred version, the way the rest of the world sees it!
Rating:
Summary: May I Have The Next Waltz?
Review: A colleague took a verbal potshot at this film before he knew how much of an allegiance I have to it. He, a former German literature student, did as all literature students and graduates seem to want to do -- trash film. Oh, how benighted they! Kubrick may have known how to make mistakes. After all, he was a perfectionist and likely thought everything he did was flawed. This film, however, is one of the more revealing about abruptly-formed and -forming sexual relations I've seen. And about the near-destruction of a sound relationship from a moment of wounded macho and several sequential adventures, mysterious and fey. Granted, it's not Arthur Schnitzler's book and doesn't take place generations ago. And it's not in any sense 'captured realism'. But its 'take' on daily -- hourly -- temptation is about as honest as one can manage in drama. Women seem a bit put off by it, if my small sample means anything. That sample covers women of 'high character' suspicious of the body as any portion of an element deciding how we should behave. The stylized orgy tableaux turned them so far off that the knobs broke. I believe one summarized her response as 'disgusted'; the other said, 'It's a man's movie.' Yes. It's hard to keep staring at something so threatening to normalcy. Dark powers -- human, not Satanic -- govern activities that verge and even overlap our lives. We keep our lids down, don't we? Kubrick's characteristic lingering camera fills our time with sinister reality: the subtlety of 'frozen' facial nuances, tarty, material interiors, the deep emptiness of 'things'. Visually, the director was a king. Let a lot be said, also, for his continued excellence in developing a musical score: pop surface mingles with the Shostakovian waltz ironies and the minimalist, tailored-to-suit Pook. I play the soundtrack in my car as an ironic test of my spiritual sobriety.
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's last master pc / Very dark film
Review: The final film from the master Kubrick. An eerie detached exploration of erotic desire & obsession. The story an argument on fidelity with wife sends a doctor in NYC to check out the seedy Manhatten underground streets & into a variety of sexual encounters and situations. Tom Cruise plays the sexual frustrated know it all attitude doctor and I have to say he is not one of my favorites but he does pull this off quite well. Nicole Kidman plays his curious wife. He ends up at an exclusive secret upper-class orgy which could lead to dangerous consequences. The cinematography is dark and creepy in usual Kubrick fashion. The acting is incredible & the storyline is unique. The movie touches on the dark side of sexual desires of one man who thought he knew it all but realized his eyes were wide shut. One of my favorite Kubrick films worth viewing.
| 
