Eyes Wide Shut

Rating:
Summary: Think this is a shallow movie? Think again!
Review: Kubrick was a mastermind, and "Eyes Wide Shut" has to be one of the most misunderstood movies ever. Without understanding the symbolism used throughout the movie, you cannot truly understand the meaning or conclusion at all. The cinematography used to display fidelity vs. infidelity was nothing short of genius. If you did not like this movie, you need to watch it again with an intellectually open mind. Ask yourself one question, is there a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Rating:
Summary: get the european version
Review: The embellishments added to the film after Kubricks's death is an ourage and a crime.
It's no wonder Kubrick was so religious about letting no on else edit his films.
That aside,
This very misunderstood film is a dreamed perversion of Beethoven's only opera; Fidelio.
The masked ball, in which the hero goes to cheat on his wife, is a reversal of the heroine's going to a masked ball to save her husband in the opera.
The other coated references are numerous (too numerous to list)
it's not the first time, of course, that Kubrick's aim was to twist Ludwig (Clockwork Orange).
Kidman is the eye of the storm here. Her husband is appropriately bland and i'm sure there was something of an inner wink with Kubrick.
The movie has many hidden treasures.
Have patience and enjoy them.

Rating:
Summary: To be studied. A haunting end to an incredible career.
Review: Eyes Wide Shut is an appropriate ending to Stanley Kubrick's career. The fact that he was unable to see it's general release makes it that much more mysterious.

This is a visceral experience on the highest order. Secret societies, love, marriage, sex, infidelity, self doubt, and numerous other themes only begin to describe this fantastic film.

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman give an outstanding performance. A truly underrated masterpiece.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible, disgusting feature
Review: I hated this movie. So did all my family. Pure crap. Trust me, stay away from this one.

Rating:
Summary: Mouth Wide Yawn
Review: Is this the artiest porn film ever? A commentary on the opti-centric male brain? The sexual revolution seen retrospectively through a fin-de-siecle Viennese novella?

I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" in its theatrical release and pretty much hated it. The dialogue is made up mostly of banalities which harkened back to the intentionally non-informational dialogue of "2001" (but in that film it a point was being made about man's misuse of tools in general). Also, I thought Kubrick's direction of the actors in EWS terrible: everyone speaks with tremendous pauses, as if every line were fraught with gravity (which of course jars against the aforementioned banality of what they are actually saying). I left thinking "so what?" which is not something I've ever associated with Stanley Kubrick...

I recently saw it again, and maybe I was a bit tough on Kubrick the first time around (hence bumped up from one star to two). After my redux, there seemed nothing unnatural about the dialogue's pacing--given the weight of the events which happen to Dr. Hartford, whether they are inner fantasies or actually happen to him over such a short period of "real" time. The film is beautiful visually, no doubt about it, and you can see the meticulous care of every detail in the framing. And his taste for repeatedly using the same piece of music is here, but with increasingly annoying effect.
This is the kind of movie it takes multiple viewings to fully understand (if one can stomach the way Kubrick deliberately made it) and it's probably not worth the investment. It would have been transgressive--had this film been released in the 60s or 70s, say. But 1999? It's like an obsolete and dusty treatise discovered after a revolution has completely transformed a society. I think it would have been a far more powerful film if Kubrick hadn't chosen to digitally obscure the orgiasts (at the least) or made the orgy scene truly shocking, unlike anything we've ever seen before, filling Hartford--and the audience--with a sense of immediate horror and danger, instead of the trick of his being "threatened" with physical harm by the revelers. But Kubrick was going for something more subtle than that, and in the absence of clarity lost his hold.

Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's Fascinating Last Movie.
Review: "Eyes Wide Shut" is Stanley Kubrick's final film. Like so many of Kubrick's films it divided opinions upon its release in 1999. Some people mercilessly trashed it, even going as far as to claim that Kubrick's sure touch had deserted him, and that in his dotage his quality control had dipped.

It hadn't. "Eyes Wide Shut" is flawed, but still rather brilliant. The main problem with it initially was its marketing: The presence of Hollywood royalty Kidman and Cruise and some neat, ambiguous trailers led people to believe this was a popcorn thriller, whereas in fact it is an arthouse film. Still, such misunderstandings gave Kubrick the biggest box office of his career; a shame he wasn't around to enjoy that, having died less than a week after presenting Warner Brothers with the final cut.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a slim tale about marriage and emotional infidelity. Kidman confesses to Cruise that she once thought about commiting adultery. She goes into lurid detail, oblivious to the fact that she is - simply by telling the tale - putting her marriage in danger.

Cruise then goes on a dark night of the soul. He turns down sex with one of his patients (He's a doctor), he nearly sleeps with a prostitute, he winds up gate-crashing a bizarre masked orgy, and nearly gets away with it.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a film in which things 'nearly' happen, but generally don't. It is also a movie with a peculiar look - its dreamlike quality has been much commented on - and a strange narrative structure. That, along with its title, leads many to suppose it is an extended dream sequence; this seems like a good explanation for its mechanisms, but whose dream is it? Why are they dreaming it?

There are more questions in "Eyes Wide Shut" than there are answers. It's an art film. It asks for a contribution from its viewer, unlike, say, "Mission:Impossible," which spoon-feeds its audience at every stage. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a movie to ponder over, to debate, to discuss. And personally I wish there were more films being made like this.

It's a fascinating trip and one worth re-watching, but it is not the place to start with Kubrick. There are so many half-buried references to his previous work that will simply pass over the head of the first time Kubrick viewer. That said, the movie works on its own terms, just so long as you don't demand everything spelled out in mile high letters and everything tidied up in a neat little bundle at the end.

For those who appreciate filmmaking that is a little unusual, and attempts to do something different with narrative structure, "Eyes Wide Shut" is fascinating. Worth looking at.

Rating:
Summary: when the best intentions just aren't enough
Review: The Cruise and Kidman show hit the skids on the back of this movie and eventually went off the rails. The films had been getting worse over the decade in an 'art-imitating-life' way. Days of Thunder was cheesy, but enjoyable, Far and Away was cheesy and poor and this confused message simply not the kind of masterpiece we have come to expect from all involved, especially the late Kubrick.

I would suggest that any Kubrick fan can find enough reason to like this movie. I for one thought 2001 was a modern epic, i enjoyed Full Metal Jacket and i am a huge fan of The Shining. The acting is fine, but no better, the plot endlessly confused (although not necessarily confusing) and the nudity (even to a fan of female nudity) excessive and detrimental to the film. If i asked enough random questions in a movie i could generate an army of people intent on providing detailed and complex answers, waxing lyrical about meanings and intentions etc. When Tarantino released Pulp Fiction he created a similar effect, but the film was also excellent. This is extremely disappointing, however, an utter waste of talent and a sad way for Kubrick to have signed off. Rumour has it that Cruise and Kidman were extremely disappointed with the finished article and it hardly seems surprising. I can't think of a worse mistake from Cruise since Magnolia. I can see the attraction Magnolia had for certain people, but it frankly sent me to sleep in a way nothing has achieved since the English Patient and this is even more tedious.

Over-long, lacking in plot, cinematic tension, characterisation, direction and resolution. The nudity isn't erotic (i assume Kubrick intended to represent it from the outsider's perspective and hence make it clinical) and there really leaves little to commend this one unfortunately.

Do i understand the intent to ask questions around a central, and seemingly happy, relationship when sex, fantasy and perversion get involved? Yes, but do i think this film asks the right questions or hints at interesting answers? No.

Rating:
Summary: movie
Review: I tried to watch this film more than once to see if I "got it". I don't care if I did or didn't. This movie was so pointless and long that I just didn't care anymore. Plot:A husband and wife fighting all the time. Find something else to watch if you want to watch something Good.

Rating:
Summary: mind wide open
Review: an intensely thought-provoking, moody film that delves into bizarre and interesting territory. Loneliness, fear and lust are a few of the themes captured majestically within a stunning visual landscape and hypnotic dream-like sequences that spirit your mind into vast spaces.

Quite enjoyable.

Rating:
Summary: Hypnotic & befuddling.
Review: This film is probably only worth 4 1/2 stars, but since so many other reviewers here panned it unjustly, I felt I had to give it five stars to balance the picture.

I never saw "Eyes Wide Shut" on the big screen. I was acting in a production of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" when it was playing,
and I remember other cast members calling it disturbing, irritating, skeevy, bizarre, frightening, and telling me I HAD to view it to get what they were talking about. Years later, I rented it on DVD.

I confess that I hated the movie, but for some strange reason, I also found that I could not remove my eyes from it until the last credit rolled. About a year later, I caught the beginning again while channel-surfing, and once again, I could not pull away from it. Only this time, I began to see that it may very well be a masterpiece. It simply isn't what we're used to. The title alone has given me a lot to think about before I drift off to sleep at night, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that!

For film buffs, Kubrick's recreation of New York City streets in a London studio alone is worth the price of the DVD. The lighting and camerawork is high art, with weird, disturbing color-choices (all the light shown through windows is a bright but ominous blue). I almost hate to refer to a genius like Stanley Kubrick as ....-rententive, but "Eyes Wide Shut" took almost two years of filmimg, with takes and re-takes to get every image exactly the way he saw it in his head. That's not to mention the years spent on the screenplay and pre-prep.

Here's the kicker: American censors would only release the "Eyes Wide Shut" with an XXX rating, which the studio thought would kill it at the box office. Thus one particularly scary, long ....scene was transformed into a perplexing mess, with dark robes digitally added to the actors afterward. No wonder SK checked out soon after it was ready to open.

Okay, the story, I'll leave you to discover, along with your own thoughts about the title. Let it suffice to say that I am now somewhat addicted to watching & re-watching both my DVD copies (American and unedited European versions). I only wish Kubrick were still here to keep creating this quality of movie experience. I'd have given ANYTHING to have seen his version of "Artificial Intelligence".