Rating: 
Summary: a very disapointing kubrick
Review: Hi,I am a great fan of Kubrick. "A Clockwork Orange" is one of my favorite movie of all time (I must have seen it ten times). I was most disapppointed however by this movie. Firstly, my main criticism is that the plot is not tight. Any writing manual tells you "if you show a gun in the first act, it must go off by the end of the play." In this film there are many guns that never go off, scenes or characters that appear but against all expectations do not play any more role in the remainder of the story (like the HIV+ prostitute, or the daughter of the costume shop owner). I appear as if scene were removed from the movie in the last minute. In addition, it is poorly acted. I am no fan of Tom Cruise but the acting of both Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman was poor which leads me to think that the film was poorly directed. The first half an hour is especially poorly acted. Even the music is nothing to write about. Kubrick made terrific use of music in "A clockwork Orange" or "2001 - A Space Odyssey". So much so that 15 years after Space Odyssey, the music theme is often still played in the news to represent futurism and space exploration. Music was nothing but mediocre here.
There is one scene (for those who have seen it, the scene in the house) that stands sharply above the rest and contains some of Kubrick's magic but overall it is a film to be avoided.
Rating: 
Summary: For Serious Movie Lovers Only
Review: Kubrick's final work is, without a doubt, one of his best. With all of the controversy surrounding the film, from the deleted orgy scene, to Kubrick's premature death during final editing, to the length of time it took to film it (two years!), this movie stands as an important and compelling tale.
In case you're apprehensive about watching Tom Cruise walk and talk in a Kubrick film, relax. He is the protagonist, but his character is not nearly as important as what happens to him and what is going on around him. The audience can easily step foot in his shoes because the viewer is just as confused as he is - confused in a good way. My first reaction to the film was that I had to watch it again and figure out what I missed - the viewer is left with many questions. This is a very deep film.
I have debated with other viewers about the meaning of certain scenes and dialogue, and the conclusion is that everyone is left with their own interpretation. There is so much going on that I would bet that even many attentive viewers missed much of the details [e.g. (DVD only) pause the movie and read along when Bill is reading the news article about the beauty queen, then read the credits, for starters].
In conclusion, if you can't handle a long movie with a slow pace, despite its rewards, go watch 100 minutes of explosions and one-liners. If you are a serious movie lover, or especially a movie snob like myself, own this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Kubrick at his worst
Review: It's been too much noise around this movie that I fianlly gave in and took a look. I'll briefly summarize its major pluses and minuses for there is already so much said about it. Plus:
1) Nicole Kidman subtly shows us the promise of a good actress--as we are given to see in The Hours.
2) Tom Cruise does a decent job only in the second part of the movie, when his monochrome on-the-screen personality fits the subdued nature of the part. Minus:
1) For the first 1/2 of the movie, one has the feeling that Tom Cruise is playing the part of Al Pacino. His boyish California style would not stand a day in the shoes of a successful and confident New York medical doctor.
2) A mediocre story that's so stamped geographically and temporally (Vienna's 1920s) does not translate into the the New York of the 90s. Nota Bene: Since Al Pacino showed us great acting in roles with such different degrees of confidence, ranging from Donie Brosco to The Godfather, casting him instead of Tom Cruise would have made so much more sense. Oh well, there is more besides shortcomings realated to the casting to speak of the dismal state of Kubrick's late hours.
Rating:
Summary: FOR A LAUGH, SEE IT FOR THE SCENE WHERE NICOLE GETS STONED.
Review: It is a crock and it stinketh. why? After Kidman's character has a flirt with some sailor boy, Thomas Malpother III's character decides to do a little flirting of his own and a large chunk of the film follows him as he stumbles from one 'encounter' to another in an attempt to get laid. He comes close but he can't get lucky. Not for lack of trying, in fact, if he was to fall into a barrel of nipples, he would come up sucking his thumb. He gate crashes what looks like the playboy mansion on a viagra promo night and witnesses; well, nothing really apart from unidentifiable people hanging out and doin' the nasty. Everyone is wearing masks, so identifying anyone is impossible, yet his life is in danger for seeing. . . people in masks partaking in horizontal (and vertical) folkdancing. Sheesh, for all he knew they all could have been members of Congress. (they are supposed to be dangerous and important) Perhaps they all have very identifiable private parts? Anyway, here is wall to wall naked willing women (and men) yet our hero just can't manage to do the deed. They find out he is not on the guest list and. . . they give him a stern talking to. Yarda yarda yarda blah blah blah and he feels really guilty about almost being unfaithful. The End.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: For them to go out on the limb and work together in a film such as this, it takes guts and the sign of a good actor/actress. Bravo to them for making a groundbreaking film.
Rating:
Summary: OF FLIRTATION, FIDELITY, FAMILY....A FABULOUS FEAST OF FILM
Review: Forgive the shameless alliteration, but whether you are in a relationship or not, and whether you dig Kubrick's works or you don't, you must watch this movie. Even if you feel that the director goes berserk with some scenes (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, highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: about this movie Eyes Wide shut.....
Review: contains a cult scene inside and without erotic scene only....:-)
Rating:
Summary: Sociology over Psychology
Review: Stanley Kubrick's final and most complicated masterpiece opened to extreme disappointment among reviewers from all over. Critical disappointment with the film was almost unanimous. They claimed that Kubrick was "out of touch with today's jaded sensibilities". However, as has been the case with almost every Kubrick film ever released, the critics, at first, could only see what was not there. The film was, and continues to be, completely and utterly misinterpreted by both the critical and the public eye. The main themes in Eyes Wide Shut are not those of sex and marriage - now, certainly, the story that is told by the actors alone echoes of these subjects. However, what the actors are doing onscreen more often than not was meant by Kubrick to take second place to the imagery used in the film. And the themes portrayed by the imagery are most certainly not that which mainstream reviews have let on. So what exactly is Eyes Wide Shut about, then? Not sex. That much should be obvious from the re-appearance of the film's title after the short shot of Nicole Kidman's buttocks (telling us that we're not really seeing what we're seeing). Eyes Wide Shut is about the wealth and power of society - about the upper class. It's about how the elite men in this world manipulate their inferiors and treat them like mere possessions. It is about the mistreatment of women and the lower class, and the source of that mistreatment. From a single viewing of Eyes Wide Shut one may assume that Nicole Kidman's character has some "power" in her relationship with her husband, that she has some other meaning to him and his acquaintances than an object - a possession. One will see, however, after analyzing the film carefully, that she has no power. Kidman's character claims she is looking for a job in one scene, but we never see her looking. Instead, we see men - powerful men, who manipulate and control their inferiors to suit their needs - looking at her. Look carefully and one will see a series of parallels between Kidman's character and that of the call-girl we see at Ziegler's Christmas party - both have red hair, are approximately the same height, and seem to have a fondness for mind-altering drugs. The character played by Kidman is nothing more than another, married prostitute. One of the most disturbing images the film shows us is that of Nicole Kidman's character "training" her daughter to follow in her footsteps - the footsteps of the wife as a possession, the wife as an object... the wife as an "upper class call-girl". When we see her daughter working on math problems, she is trying to figure out which boy has more money than the other one. The one sentence we hear as she is reading a storybook to her mom is something to the effect of "and so I jumped into bed". The countless scenes of Kidman's character and her daughter grooming themselves side-by-side should make this point obvious enough. As well, in the film's final scene, we see the daughter flitting around the shopping store, picking up items that all relate her back to the women that Bill Harford has abused in his nighttime excursions - she picks up a Barbie doll (similar to Milich's daughter, who he is pimping off to any man who wants her), a teddy bear (just like the one we see when Bill Harford is with one of the prostitutes), and a purple baby carriage (like the one we see twice outside the prostitutes' door). And for one last disturbing flourish, Kubrick has her walk past a toy conspicuously called "The Magic Circle". History repeats itself and has come full circle, and Bill and Alice are too busy to notice. Recall the cafe that Bill Harford walks into when he discovers that Mandy - the girl he believes saved his life at the orgy - has died. Notice the music that's playing in the background. It's no ordinary classical music. It's Mozart's Requiem. The piece is a song mourning the death of someone. One may think it touching of Kubrick to include this little thing in the film, but it doesn't stop there - look closely at the paintings covering the walls in the room. They are antique paintings of women - women who, in their times, were treated like possessions just as each and every woman we see in this film is treated. It is a requiem for them - it's a requiem for all those who have been downtrodden on by the socially elite. The film's final scene has been interpreted by many as a happy ending. I do not see it that way. Bill and Alice are in a position to DO SOMETHING about all of the atrocities that have been committed by the upper class. Someone has been killed and they have this one opportunity to expose it. But no. They're both too caught up in their own problems to notice, or even understand, the bigger picture. In Kubrick's last word on this subject, or, for that matter, any subject, Alice and Bill, along with the rest of the world are "**cked". Given the chance to change the world in which they live for the better, they give it up - nay, they fail to even acknowledge that the opportunity exists. For all of their meaningless chatter about being wide awake now, they're still screwed over. Their eyes are still wide shut.
Rating:
Summary: A Kubrick Moment
Review: Kubrick's last film is a testament to the Kubrickesque moments that we have grown accustomed to over the years. Kubrick is a genius of the craft of film. Every film he has done is not alike. Kubrick is a maker of different genres. He creates and tantalizes audiences with film of each genre be it horror(The Shining), Sci-Fi(2001), Anti-War(Paths of Glory), black comedy(Dr. Strangeglove), period piece drama(Barry Lyndon), social commentary(Clockwork Orange), Vietnam(Full Metal Jacket), and the bible(Spartacus).
This is a masterpiece of cinematic craft. This is full of bravura imagery that is so definitive of Kubrick. He uses the reverse and forward dolly track shots and does not focus on characterization but instead on the issues so central in all of his films and that is the dehumanization of the characters. In this case the dehumanization is of the psychosexual that is inherent in all of us. He asks us the imposing question of can you retain some type of sanity in marriage and not deviate and plunge into the darker world of infedility and promiscious behaviour. How does one do that? Is it possible? There are the temptations that draw us into the world of ritualistic sexual behaviour. We tie ourselves down into the drudgery of the banality of the middle class American dream without even thinking about what we have enslaved ourselves into. Is there a way to breach the bonds of virtue and dwelve deeper into a world where there does exist a plain of sexual freedom?
Kubrick takes the issue of fidelity and liberation into the dreamscape panorama involving one man who dares to go on the journey. Does it involve one night of soliciting prostitution and strange, mystical ritual behaviour in a mansion on the outskirts of upper class New York or is this the hidden psycho-sexual yearnings that all feel and continually perpetuate throughout life?
Kubrick's last film has come full circle with regard to the hidden senses and underlying yearnings of all mankind in this master-crafted technincal masterpiece of cinema that is Eyes Wide Shut.
Rating:
Summary: Not Kubrick's Best But Still Worth Seeing
Review: I have seen this movie three times and am happy to say it has grown on me. I'm still not sure I understand the movie but perhaps I'm not supposed to. There are unanswered questions when the movie ends, at least for me. It's certainly about the subconscious, sexual fantasy, dreams, reality, etc. I'm not sure Kidman and Cruise, though both beautiful and easy on the eyes, were the best choice for the lead actors. They appear to be playing themselves. I notice that a lot of people thought there was too much nudity. There's plenty of that, at least female. My biggest complaint is that parts of the movie are tedious and dull;(the movie is too long) I'm thinking in particular of the scene where Kidman and Cruise get stoned. High people are dull; these two are no exception. The movie, however, is beautifully filmed. The scenery is lush and rich in detail, particularly the interior shots. There is great suspense here. The section of the movie at the masked "orgy" is brilliant and the best part of the movie. Parts of this movie will haunt you long after you see it. This is not Kubrick's best movie; but even when he's not at his best, he's better than most other directors.
| 
