Eyes Wide Shut Reviews - Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide

Reviews

Patrick Larkin (Webmaster) wrote:

A first look at Eyes Wide Shut A beautifully shot film. From the opening frame of Kidman dropping her dress, we see the composition of a brilliant artist. On to the breathtaking, fuzzy-dreamlike shots of the Ball. Everything in this film was like a dream. Bill and Alice were in their own daydreams throughout the film, totally blind to the other.

Alice's initial dream is with the Hungarian, a dreamy Prince Charming who completely engrooses Kidman. (Does she feel the same for this man as the Naval Officer? Is she literally tearing herself from this dream?) Kidman, after a dance with the Hungarian, seems to "snap" out of it, waking from her dream. Meanwhile, Cruise is off on his own dreamscape, being enticed by two lovely models promising to take him to the "Rainbow's End." Cruise, like Kidman, is jostled from his dream and told to go upstairs to meet the host of the party, Ziegler. Kubrick here brings the lighting and atmosphere to a brutal reality of sterile lighting -- an obvious departure from the dreams downstairs. We find Ziegler in a giant bathroom with a naked woman who has overdosed. This scene jolts Harford and Ziegler "awake."

Each encounter on Harford's journey are like individual, encapsulated dreams. In the costume shop, Milich allows Harford into the dream like a gatekeeper. Once inside, the shop iscolored like a dream. Even the Asian men partaking in Milich's "lolita-esque" daugher appear in ridiculous makeup making them appear as characters made up by the minds eye. (Harford's return to the costume shop shows us the same Asian men without makeup and Milich being acceptant of the circumstances with his daugher...a brutal splash of cold water on the dreamscape that *seemed* to exist there only 24 hours before.

All the dreams lead up to most wonderful scene in *any* Kubrick film -- the masked ball. Straight out of Schnitzler's novella, the masked ball was truly a tremendous vision that Kubrick carried with him for decades. From the wonderful music by Jocelyn Pook to the entrancing chants and the scary-exquiste masks, the scene is one to watch over and over again. The great achievement is Kubrick did this without words, only music, imagery, and atmosphere. When the masked woman takes him in the hall, attempting to shake him from his dream, we hear "Strangers in the Night" which is ironic given the circumstances and attempts to ground Harford (and the audience).

**Note about the digitally added figures. I think it is a disgrace. The characters were SO obvious it nearly ruined one of the greatest scenes I have ever seen. I believe that Kubrick DID NOT approve such ludicrous alterations. I just can't see Kubrick giving the OK to use what looked like cardboard cutouts backlighted to make certain body parts unseen. It was and is a disgrace.

Harford comes home to learn of another erotic dream of Alice's. Alice has dreamed of giving herself to multiple men while laughing at Bill. Something that distresses both of them. Here Kubrick is delving into the psychology of Schnitzler which no analysis here will take apart thoroughly.

While Bill's dreams are daydreams, Alice's are unconscious dreams. Is there a difference? Since Bill never actually has sex, is there a distinction? Both are obsessed with sex and both are jealous of each other.

The ending in the toy store seems a bit un-Kubrick in that it neatly ties a bow on the film. Surprisingly, Kubrick stayed honest to Schnitzler's novel in this way. Kubrick even went as far as using the same dialogue from Traumnovelle:

"Just as sure as I am that the reality of one night,
let alone that of a whole lifetime, is not the whole
truth"

"And no dream is entirely a dream."

Even Zielger's character, which was added to the origianl material, seemed to tidy things up a bit at the end. Tying loose ends and telling the audience what to believe. Or did he? Are we to believe this Ziegler character? I certainly don't.

Thank you Stanley. The fact that the so-called sex romp between the Cruises that everyone thought would continue well past the ShoWest clip, in fact, was it. Kubrick cuts at exactly that same point as in the clip. Beautiful.

The choice in music was exceptional. From the opening waltz to Ligeti's haunting percussive piano piece, to the astounding chanting of Pook's masked ball, the music was definitive Kubrick.

While I must see this film again (and again) and continue disect it, EWS is a stunning, thought provoking, wild trip with good performances by all involved. The true star here is Kubrick, however, and as the end credits rolled, I sat remembering after being awakened from my EWS voyage, that I have witnessed the final work.

Thank you Stanley Kubrick.

Patrick Larkin
Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide

-- 7/17/99

Giovanni Ronda (Gioronda73@yahoo.it) wrote:

EYES WIDE SHUT, UN CONGEDO SUBLIME Sì: l'ultimo film di Stanley Kubrick è tratto da un romanzo di Schnitzler che ha per protagonisti il sogno e l'eros. Ma "Eyes Wide Shut" li ha solo per comprimari, giacché i suoi protagonisti sono la luce e la divinità che che in essa si esprime; come l'oro delle icone medievali, e di più: l'oro è anche sulla pelle, come nella scena di Cruise e Kidman dinnanzi allo specchio. Ma è una divinità diversa da quella di "2001 Odissea nello spazio" ("al cuore di 2001 c'è il concetto di Dio" diceva Kubrick in un'intervista del 1970), perchè questa volta si trova "aperta" fra le vicende d'amore e di morte delle relazioni umane. Gli avvenimenti del film si svolgono nel periodo di Natale (solo un emblema, ovviamente) e, proprio in quei giorni che celebrano la nascita, ogni evento "snasce", come nel romanzo di Schnitzler, e non approda a nulla, e sembra sorgere dal nulla. Ed è questo, credo, che sconcerta chi sta vedendo il film in questi giorni ed è abituato alla forza deterministica kubrickiana, alla sua epifania di momenti cruciali che provocano i grandi mutamenti nelle sue storie (la cura Ludovico porta al baratro "meccanico" di una nemesi vertiginosa, l'invenzione dell'arma-osso alle astronavi, l'astuzia di Danny con le orme nel labirinto alla salvezza, il duello col figliastro alla totale disfatta di Barry Lindon: questi esempi solo per citare alcuni tra gli innumerevoli, fortissimi, nessi causali nei suoi film precedenti). Ed è in questo che invece Kubrick arriverà a sorprenderci per molto tempo col suo ultimo film: come nel sogno, come nell'incubo wellesiano ("Il processo"), come in Lynch, ogni evento si sfata, non porta a niente. E c'è il pericolo, è in agguato, serpeggia, lo si incontra: la gelosia, la rottura, le tetre e sontuose maschere che affondano nel Natale il loro orgiastico rito di morte, più grottesco che erotico (come annotava delusa Irene Bignardi), perchè, al di là della solennità apparente, il male è umanamente ottuso, e perciò ha comunque connotati grotteschi. Ecco dunque l'ultima potente visione di Kubrick, che di luce, luce che s'effonde (a fasci, a perle, irraggiandosi...) dai luoghi più imprevisti, "contorna" i personaggi, che non s'accorgono di nulla, e si muovono, così, ad occhi completamente "spalancati chiusi": ironia del grande regista, che seppe illuminare un feto nello spazio e che, comprendendo la segreta intelligenza del titolo inventato di Stephen King, chiamò "luccicanza" il più bel film dell'orrore mai fatto. -- 7-15-1999

Timo Vainonen (tvainonen@hotmail.com) wrote:

Haven't seen it and won't see it until October here in Finland, but it's a masterpiece anyway. Am I not right?? -- 07-16-1999

Eyes Wide Shut (Eyes Wide Shut) wrote:

Eyes Wide Shut -- Eyes Wide Shut

Aaron

Perfect! The last Kubrick film fits into place nicely. As always, he explores the darker side of human nature, and the film is, of course, visually stunning. He also followed protocol by showing moviegoers something they've never seen the likes of before. He is a true revolutionary, and today was a bittersweet event. On one hand, seeing a new Kubrick film is quite an event, but being his last, it was a more than a little sad. Four stars, another great film in the collection! -- 7/16/99

Paul Doherty (pfunk@dreamscape.com) wrote:

A few hours after viewing the film it hit's me. Incredible. Cant wait to see it again. -- 7/16/99

Bry (b09@hotmail.com) wrote:

very intriguing. -- 7/16

Katie

I went to the opening nite showing of Eyes Wide Shut. IT is not the porno everyone has made it out to be. Its an ingenious, make-you-think, what REALLY went on type of movie. An hour or two later, I'm still reeling from it. It seems like it will be one of those films where you will learn and realize more about it as you see it more. Its wonderful. Best Kubrick film I've seen. -- July 16, 1999

Walter Frith (wfrith@cgocable.net) wrote:

Isn't it odd that on the day (July 16, 1999) that Stanley Kubrick's last film, 'Eyes' Wide Shut' opens, that it marks the 30th anniversary of the day the Apollo 11 space mission was launched and its occupants would be the first men on the moon four days later on July 20, 1969. Since a film about a space odyssey is Kubrick's masterpiece, I feel the space time continuum rumbling around us. : - ) Where were you when Stanley Kubrick died? Kubrick died in the early morning hours of March 7, 1999.....a Sunday. I had been out late with friends the night before and slept in until about noon and I was lying in bed trying to wake up by watching t.v. --- as if that works! While channel surfing, CNN's Headline News had the story at the top of its 30-minute newscast and I jumped out of bed and ran out to tell my family of the news. Kubrick's death was overshadowed the next day as baseball legend Joe DiMaggio passed away. Since he hadn't turned out a film in 12 years since 1987's 'Full Metal Jacket', Kubrick worked for two years in the final process, filming his last picture which is an appropriate swan song for those who understand his vision and those who don't. That aspect of his work never changed throughout the decades and there's no reason to believe that Kubrick would change to conventional film making so late in life. Kubrick would also stick to his re-occurring theme of dehumanization for his final film. In no small way, I am deeply convinced in the strictest of terms that 'Eyes Wide Shut' ranks right up there with Kubrick's great classics such as 'Dr. Strangelove' (1964), '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968), and his most controversial film (maybe not anymore) 'A Clockwork Orange' (1971). Kubrick has explored every aspect of human nature under the most meticulous circumstances. You could practically write an entire book on each one of his landmark films. His thorough examinations of war, social strife, political incompetence, technology running amok, showing that times change but people don't, prove that Kubrick was way ahead of his generation. His take on sex hasn't been seen with such broad study since 1962's 'Lolita' and that film is now a Sunday school film compared to 'Eyes Wide Shut'. Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, an M.D. married happily (or so it seems) for nine years to his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman). The two of them have a seven year old daughter. One night will attending a party of high society thrown by a colleague of Bill's (Sydney Pollack), some degrading things begin to happen in the lives of the main characters that will affect them over the next 24 hours that will undoubtedly change their lives forever. Alice dances with a handsome and much older Hungarian man with some distinguished grey whose personality is that of a poet who likes to seduce women. Bill is hit on by some young women at the affair, sometimes two at a time and helps his colleague and party host out of a jam when a girl with whom the host has been having sex, almost overdoes on cocaine and heroine in the upstairs bathroom. After arriving home, Bill and Alice let the pot they've been smoking open some new sides to their personality. As their minds expand, they find there is great sexual tension in their marriage and Alice reveals that she once made love with a navy officer and was willing to throw everything in her life away, including her family, in order to be with this man for only a brief time. Bill is blown away by this. From the audience's point of view, his assumed fidelity towards his wife goes unrewarded and he leaves the apartment for a sexual exploration of his own in New York city's underground. You must see the rest of this film for yourself to believe it, enjoy it and be artfully shocked by it. There is one harrowing scene at a party attended by a couple of hundred people out at a mansion in the countryside that is unforgettable. It's a sex ritual and orgy that is clandestine, posh and upscale, and for adults only where everyone wears formal dress, cloaks and capes, and masks. At one point, there are no words spoken. It is only what looks and feels like a soliloquy of mime art. It is a scene that ranks right up there with the opening war room scene in 'Dr. Strangelove', the computer malfunction in '2001: A Space Odyssey' and the climactic scene of Malcolm McDowell's lidlocked eyes during the final stages of brain washing in 'A Clockwork Orange'. At the centre of the film's main characterizations, 'Eyes Wide Shut' is more about fore play than it is sex. The scenes involving sexual display are tastefully done and there is a lot more innuendo in the film than you may have been led to believe during the film's advanced publicity. Kubrick, for the last time in his career, uses many unknown actors to sell his message and does it brilliantly. He makes a mega star like Tom Cruise fit in well with these people and never gives one character in a minor supporting role domination over another. In a major supporting role, Sydney Pollack is sensational. I always said that he should have received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for 1982's 'Tootsie'. Directing himself as Dustin Hoffman's neurotic talent agent, Pollack was hilarious in a role he made totally convincing. Nicole Kidman is very admirable in her role in 'Eyes Wide Shut'. I would have liked to have seen more of her acting talent used in the film but she is not as dominating in the film's second half. Carrying this film for the better part of the way the same as he did in 'Born on the Fourth of July' is Tom Cruise. Forget his marketable name, forget his early juvenile films and give this man the credit he deserves. Cruise exhibits sexual frustration and a wrestling match with his conscience superbly in this film as a man with an unwavering amount of decency in the perverse world he discovers. It's a challenge any actor would have difficulty with and Cruise holds his own with any other actor that could have played this role. Two Oscar nominations and his ability to act equally as well opposite Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson and Paul Newman (who heaped well deserved praise on Cruise), make Cruise that rare commodity of actor AND movie star and those who don't see his talent can only hope to in the future. What is truly remarkable about the ending of 'Eyes Wide Shut' is the way it is strangely fitting as to what happens to the film's characters. Kubrick intentionally leaves it open to intense debate as to whether or not it is the correct ending and I'm sure he counted on this. Not knowing he would never see the reaction film audiences around the world would have to it makes Kubrick's death all the more untimely and his movies will forever speak to us in a way he never could personally. -- July 17, 1999

Matt Brown (mattcb@ix.netcomcom) wrote:

A beautifully and hauntingly filmed movie (what's new?) about the danger and mystery of sex, marriage, and fidelity. All you Kubrick fans out there are going to EAT THIS UP, trust me. This is absolutely a fitting fanale. And it'll tear you up inside that Stanley is no longer around to continue doing this. Go see the movie--it'll stick in your head for a long, long time. (what's new??) -- 7-17-99

Franco (pasquale@nji.com) wrote:

I liked it but must see it again to pick up some more details. Probably on video. I haven't been to a theater in a couple or years and I'm never amazed at how uncomfortable and disappointing this experience is. A woman's (behind me) cell phone rang and she actually had the nerve to try to wisper a short conversation. Later on some kids broke in the emergency exit and ran up the isle laughing. I got my money back but will probably not go to another movie for a long time. Video will hurt this film but it's the only way I can concentrate. OK, now for my review: The opening was a bit slow, but it was an effective foundation for the rest of the movie. Although Tom Cruise was excellent, I found it hard to beleive that such a young man could be such a successful and wealthy physician. He should barely be out of his internship. As with Kubricks other films, the scenes (background) can be more interesting than the action. It's hard to concentrate on what the actors are saying. This is why his films require multiple viewings. I was hooked throughout the movie. Unlike most formula movies, you really don't know what the hell is going to happen next. Things do not appear as they seem and there is a lot of interpretation required to try to figure out what occured in reality and what was a dream. I once had a company reception at a mansion in the middle of no-where not unlike the mansion in the movie. Therefore I found the masked ball quite intriging and beleivable. While there is tons of nudity, it's not pornographic. I found the film to be more about what happens to your state of mind when you are walking through a city in the middle of the night and the possible weirdness that can result or can be imagined to result. Especially after weird and upsetting events have occured prior to the walk. BTW, everyone in the theater including my wife absolutly hated this movie. Then again, if 2001 had played, the same people would also have hated it, so that means nothing. -- 7/17/99

Q (Qbrick15@aolcom) wrote:

Unlike anything that Kubrick has ever done before, Eyes Wide Shut breaks new ground on many fronts. Who's responsible for inspiring Stanley to enter this brave new world? Obviously, Stillman's dialog and comic social situations are present, along with Tarantino's language and absurd twists (the costume shop). The opening music and the interpersonal relationships have a Woody Allen feel to them. But make no mistake, this is a Stanley Kubrick movie. The amazing colors, the brilliant lighting, the incredible tracking shots...it's here. The characters relate to each other in a very deliberate manner. The dialog being composed of baby steps, minute chess moves of exchanged information, which slowly reveal the suspenseful story. There is a lot to to admire in this film, whether it's the first rate performances from Cruise, Kidman and Pollack; or the fantastic visuals (a revolving door, a ceremonial dance, a trip to the store for some Christmas shopping) that clearly demonstrate Kubrick still had the skills of a master. Q -- 7-17-99

Glenn Pulliam (gpull00@mail.fc.peachnet.edu.com) wrote:

What happend? Did anyone else notice that this movie was cut, and cut very poorly. Too many unaswered questions, I know there are all ways some but I dont't think that this is what he intended. I a mad who ever did this to his creation should be dealt with. Why, Why, Why? did they do this to him. -- 7-17-99

Sebastien

Thank you M.Kubrick for this last intepretation of your genius. I really believe this is the film you wanted to make for decate. All your movies give my the strengt I need to continue in the life. I cant accept I see your last creation.You are the greatess movie-maker to ever cross these land. I hope you feel good where you are now.But I will never forgot what you do.You are still the man Stan. You will never be forget... s -- 16 july 1999

Carlos Ariel Garcia Amaya (gcarlos@mailcity.com) wrote:

Excellent Movie. I see the movie in chula vista, CA, and it was an experience. I can't wait to see it again when it shows in mexico. -- 17/07/99

gabe (gmagee@nmia.com) wrote:

ok... so was the mandy at the beginning (in the bathroom) the same woman at the masquerade that 'redeems' bill hartford and also the same woman at the morgue? is it??? who is that woman that saves him, and how the hell does she know that he is an outsider so early in his arrival? (she was in that circle when he walked in... did sidney's character know of everything beforehand and warn her? was that him nodding to hartford from the balcony?) help!?!?!??!?!?!? feel free to email me if you have any ideas. --

M. C. Erion (mcerion@hotmail.com) wrote:

I saw the film last night, 7/16/99 at a late show. A subtle and sardonically funny film from the master. Too bad Stanley wasn't there at the end to tweak the edits and save his masterpiece from the censors. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman gave excellent performances. Although the film was two and half hours, I felt Kubrick maintained a tight tension throughout. My only problem was I thought the film ended a too soon. I had more questions and wanted them resolved, but maybe that was the point. They weren't supposed to be resolved. Tom Cruise's character glides through life with his eyes closed to the people's desires all around him. Everyone wants to have sex with his character and he hardly notices it, but his eyes are opened finally at the end of the film. Overall I loved this film. The crowd I saw it with were not too hip to Kubrick's vision. They often missed the humor and laughed only at the most obvious spots. Many walked out and I heard a lot of grumbling when I was exiting the film. Comments like "It stunk," don't bode well for this film's financial future. If you are a Kubrick fan, I advise you see this film soon, because it won't be in the theater's long. At least not outside of the major cities. -- 7/17/99

Rob Philpott (rep@achilles.net) wrote:

The best works of modern narrative are those that invite you to give yourself over to it completely so that you can experience something at once familiar and yet completely new. Eyes Wide Shut took me a on a journey through a world that was intriguing, banal, sinister, safe, beautiful, and ugly. I don't think I'm hyperbolizing when I predict that this film will take its place alongside James Joyce's Ulysses and T.S. Eliot's Wasteland and a work of art that will be studied and enjoyed for years to come. Like Ulysses, I found EWS to be a funny yet deadly serious journey through an unknown culture that is so close yet so far away from the routine existence of professional life. It was an old-fashioned tale of an ingenue touring through different cultures and sects (like Gulliver, or Candide), yet it was completely in the now. Tom Cruise has truly proven that he is the great actor of the 90s. He is the only actor in Kubrick's pantheon that gave a performance so perfectly nuanced and worthy of audience identification and sympathy. I think his very emotional and risk-taking acting is what will set this film apart from Kubrick's other masterpieces. Tom Cruise is indeed very brave. I especially liked how he tweaked the nose of tabloid journalism in the scene where he is attacked by homophobic frat boys. Kubrick demonstrates in this film a mastery of Freudian and Jungian psychology. Not since senior year at university have I seen so much doubling, homosexual panic, narcissism... Favourite bit: when the man in the Napoleon mask takes Mandy away from Bill Harford at the masquerade. I love that Kubrick could throw in jokes and references like that to tickle his hardcore fan following. Second favourite bit: Nicole Kidman's devastating confessional monologue to Bill. Probably the best female role in all of Kubrick's movies. I could go on more, but I'll let others touch on other topics. Also, there's more I'll probably have to say after I've mulled the movie over a couple of days. -- July 17/99

scott Thompson (Scott30496@aol.com) wrote:

This movie is not for everyone. In fact it is above the comprehension level of most people. Or at least the people that don't want to take the time to merge with the film. Complex, deep, and original is the only way I can describe this work. I think this film will become part of our culture and will be a historical guide to the hidden side of man. This will last for long after all of us are gone. -- july 17, 1999

Adam (agreen@broadquest.com) wrote:

The reviews praise his mastery and his earlier films are a brilliant body of work. Alas, this piece is an artistic indulgence that leaves the viewer bored, waiting for a slow moving plot to unfold with the insight and sensitivity of the frequent monologues in the beginning of the story. Kidman and Cruise elevate their abilities under Kubrik's guidance but can do nothing to avoid the tedium of this unfinished work. There is a beginning, there is no middle and the end comes with satisfying the most tantalizing thoughts provoked at the outset. Artistry has overtaken filmmaking here -- this artist has suffered for his work ... and now it's our turn ... This is a movie not worthy of the people that contributed to it. -- today...Jul,17,99

Jimmy Andrade (jimmy.andrade@usa.net) wrote:

If you like Kubrick's master works, or at least have certain sensibility for art cinema, you will love this movie, if you're a pop-corn eater trying to relief from your daily stress or you're just going to see Nicole naked, you'll be disappointed, and as every mediocre media is reviewing the film: "you will find it boring". This movie is for people who likes to think. The cinematography is excellent, the pace and rhythm of the film is slowly increasing until you reach the point that you can hear your heartbeat. The dialogs are very realistic, "juicy" as I call such approach. Tom and Nicole act incredibly well, they're very intense, very magnetic personalities. The music fits perfectly into the atmosphere of the film, as I side comment, I was pleased when I discovered that Brad Mehldau plays one of the tracks. Definitely the best last words Kubrick could say. Jimmy Andrade -- 7/17/1999

Tee (pandoralynn@yahoo.com) wrote:

I hope no one flames me for this, but I feel a little let down by EWS. During the masked ball scene I figured the woman who warned Harford was Mandi. I also figured that the man in the white mask was Ziegler. Thus, I was not surprised by Ziegler's "revelations" at the pool table. Also, although I knew that the masked woman was supposed to be Mandi, the actress in the mask was not the same actress in the bathroom - her nipples were way larger than the actress who OD'd in the bathroom. This is just a minor flaw though. I did like the fact that there were some unexplained events - which is why I love Kubrick in the first place. He leaves some things to for the viewer to ponder over, rather than explain away everything. The performances by the actors were great. I got the feeling that Kubrick wanted to emasculate Harford, not only because he never has any sex despite all his chances, but because of the gay-bashing group scene and flirty hotel clert. Although EWS succeeds as a relationship introspection, it doesn't pass muster as a suspense/mystery movie. -- 7/17/99

Janine Smith (janine@jzine.com) wrote:

Silly, silly movie. I'm sure they thought they were doing something important. They weren't. Humiliating to watch. So so sorry this was Kibrick's last movie. I was hoping for so much more. -- 7/17/99

Piranha Jones (piranhaxl@hotmail.com) wrote:

When i first saw A Clockwork Orange about a year ago, I fell in love with the deranged and wonderous visions of Kubrick. I would definately say that Eyes Wide Shut is one of the best (if not THE best) film that he has ever made. With such a vision as this, its sad to know that we will never see his unique style again brighten our minds. -- 7/17/99

methadonekittie (methadonekittie@disinfo.net) wrote:

I am completely outraged about the number of reviews I have read that say that this movie should have more sex in it. Does a movie have to include lots of fucking to be about sex? Does a sexy movie have to be pornographic every second? NO. It seems that people have put themselves under an impression that Kubrick was going to shoot highly-stylized porn, rather than a movie dealing with complex human relationships. That the 'pot scene' is the cornerstone is obvious...the implict views of alice and bill during the christmas party are then made explicit. Ideas of what men and women are..of what women and men want. The questions raised during that evening session influence every part, every proceeding event, in the most weblike and excruciating connected way.... I simply cannot wait to see it again, and if anyone would like to engage in a discussion of the psychology of the movie, I would welcome it. -- 7/17/99

Kirk Lynde (kirk.lynde@odyssey.on.ca) wrote:

What a sumptuous,lavish finale for Stanley Kubrick. This film is wonderous. It immerses the viewer in ever more interesting visual images while telling the story of jealously nearly undoing a marriage. The strength of this film is its splendid texture not its narrative. An interesting final stroke of genius from a filmaker who clearly worked with a medium he fully understood. -- 18/07/99

Dee (dbyd@earthlink.net) wrote:

Incredible acting ... powerful film ... as a student of human behavior, and having first-hand experience with the themes of this movie, I offer my continued respect and admiration for Mr. Kubrick for his ingenious ability to portray the crux of the human psyche. This is NOT just about jealousy and obsession, it is a study of classic human nature, knowing one's self, and making intelligent choices. Do we follow instinct, or do we think through our actions and the unseen frailties of ourselves & our fellow man? There are a million ways to sell our souls - Eyes Wide Shut covers a few of them with the usual brilliance of this master filmmaker. This is raw and powerful in its honesty. Thank you, Mr. Kubrick and all your associates for yet another masterpiece. .... D. Ames Designs by D of Las Vegas http://home.earthlink.net/~dbyd -- 7-18-99

Laura

The typical review of Eyes Wide Shut reads, "a personal, poignant, haunting, spellbinding final masterpiece." Once this "spell" (read cinematography and slow pacing) fades, and it does fade quickly, what remains is a badly sewn patchwork quilt, much of the material derived from other films. Part upper-middle Manhattan a la Woody Allen, part pulpy humor a la Tarantino (japanese businessmen in the costume shop) and part fantasy (vs. dream) of antiquated sexual ritual, these elements just don't gel. Unfortunately it doesn't stop there. Structurally Eyes suffers from symptoms similar to, and perhaps arisen from, the tonal inconsistencies. For a film that truly, and successfully, breaks down the continuity narrative, check out Last Year At Marienbad (Resnais, 1969) or 8 1/2. Eyes also aims for the anti-climax upon anti-climax closure which give John Ford films such a sense of truth and realism, but it doesn't work here, partially because of the ludicrous nature of the orgy sequence (as well as much else). Furthermore, for a film which draws upon Jungian psychology, Eyes is embarrassingly childish in its treatment of psycho-sexual themes. Bergman and Fellini (to name a couple) work this terrain and reap wonderful, enchanted fruit. Eyes exploits these concepts without any real understanding of their depth, and worse- uses them as an excuse to show the playboy version of a Sadeian orgy. But, one may ask, did he even want to explore their depth? If he didn't, the irony falls flat. So now, other critics, wishing to salvage the film, read Eyes as a darkly comic look at materialism, and that the viewer who doesn't "get it" is a simpleton... because, of course, this is Stanley Kubrick film. If class analysis were the filmmaker's intention, it is not done effectively. Bill's imaginings of his wife's affair with the sailor is trite, but not pushed far enough to become ironic. The Hungarian lothario/vampire, whose lines include "have you ever read Ovid's Art of Love?" is insipid, but Alice's reaction does not suggest an ironical commentary. Bill's naked woman-cum-savior at the orgy suffers from the same symptoms.... "STOP!" ? I personally can not recall a more ridiculous moment in a film. If you're looking for a film with a politically *relevant* sense of irony, Goddard's Weekend drove home this theme to perfection. Its most obvious flaw is also the most serious... can anyone venture a guess? Are the views on the relationship between men and women are hopelessly, hopelessly, out of date? Powerful men have orgies with prostitutes, while "Nic" stays at home with baby? The good mother can only fantasize about having an affair with a sailor (this drives hubby to the brink?!)? All the women parade naked, while the men remain clothed? Boys and girls, Ms. Robinwood is going to teach you a new word today- and I want you to repeat after me- can we say EX-PLOIT-ATION? Nicole Kidman's own comments about working with the filmmaker, who explained to her "No, You can't talk to a man that way." reveals his agenda. How would we feel about a film where a white man fantasizes about naked, grinning black slaves in a cotton field? Not too well (or maybe just swell, judging from the reaction to this film.) Perhaps we'll *overlook* it just once more (word ring any bells, kids? Read Kael's review of the Shining.) Overall, Eyes was goofy, derivative, bloated with self-importance, and most of all, damaging. Disenchanted, Laura -- 7/18/99

Kevin (biggio81@aol.com) wrote:

It had all the aspects of a good movie, good actors in Samuel Jackson, Liam Nielson, and Natalie Portman; an awesome director in George Lucas, and of course all that other Star Wars hype. So with all these great expectations of mine about the upcoming Phantom Menace movie I thought that no matter what happened I knew that I would leave impressed. Wrong. I hated that movie. And not only the movie but the fact I let myself get carried away for a movie. So I told myself never to get emotional over a movie again. So months later I again had this feeling toward an upcoming movie with spectacular actors (Cruise and Kidman), the best director in Kubrick and of course all that hype over the sex. So once again I walked into the theater with high expectations and truly felt that I would thoroughly enjoy the movie. Right. This movie is easily one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has single handidly restored my faith in movies, especially after all the summer blockbuster crap that returns annually to just piss me off. Oh well back to Kubrick's masterpiece. Everything about this movie is consistent in the fact that this is a Kubrick film and he lets you know it with the use of eerie music that just goes along with the spectacular sets and odd minor characters used to bring out the emotions Kubrick is looking for. The massive orgy scene though is the only flaw in the movie because as we all know had digitally created people to block out particular sex scenes in order to avoid the NC-17 rating, because we all know that this movie is best suited for children under 17, right? Lets face it it was a joke for the movie industry to allow this to happen, but what can you do with so many idiots out there? So go see Eyes Wide Shut, it is a great movie. Oh and by the way, the only people who do not like this movie are idiots who came to see Tom and Nicole get naked. -- July 18, 1999

Jonathan (filmjguy1@aol.com) wrote:

Eyes wide shut has an austere, cold quality to it that is timed perfectly and enhances the Dream Story of sexual obsessiona nd jealousy. Bill Harford's night odyssey is twisted with rage, revenge, obsession, and guilt. The fact that he never has sex that night after his wife Alice makes him insanely jealous is meant to provide depth into an icy shell. As exhubed by the opening scenes the couple may love each other intensely..but like many couples have become frozen with time and social conquest. The night out is intended to warm him to sex.... and the journey provides many attempts to tempt him. But he resists out of guilt? Still, his intrigue turns deadly, perhaps a minor lark of morality as he intrudes on a secret ritualistic orgy party. The masked men hiding theior identity are like sexual beacons that society forces them to cover. Sexual inhibtions in the 90s are full forced then why make them dangerous and cover them. well kubrick simply sees that maybe we still hide our deepest, most bizarre inhibitions. Straight copulation is easy and free, as exhibited in front of a mirror for all the world to see... but the Orgy and Sacrifice, an S&M laced force, is inevitably forced to hide. The high and mighty of NYC must hide thsi way and make the Orgyu dangerous. Dr Bill entranced by the dream of sex is a troubled everyman that has found a system he once believed (in this case the trust and love unconditionally of his wife threatned) to be flawed is enraged with envy. The careful, calculated performances of Cruise and Kidman hold the difficult material together and solifify it. The only flaw in the film is the way it ends... in which we think we know what reality was not the dream.... but the fact that its still mysterious even after an attempt suggests that 1) Kubrick tried to tie up loose ends too easy and 2) maybe he did this for a deeper purpose.... A ( A+ but the flawed ending) -- 7-18-99

Jason Torrey (micromanfilms@hotmail.com) wrote:

Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut". Friday morning I woke up at 7 am and struggled to get back to sleep since I still had 4 1\2 hours to wait for the earliest showing of my favorite director's final film. At 10 I put on my shorts and my "Clockwork Orange" t-shirt and headed towards the theater. I arrived at 10:15 with 1 hour and 15 minutes to wait, just enough time to steak out the best seat in the theater. I waited wondering what I was going to see, would it be the geatest film ever, will this movie put to shame all other movies, will I be disapointed? When the previews were over and the Warner Bros. logo danced on the screen my heart pounded in my chest. For the next 2 hours and 45 minutes I felt like I was in a trance, my eyes were fixed on the screen unable to look away. Everything was just what I had imagined it would be, the classic Kubrick camera moves, the lighting, the sets, the music, everything screamed "Kubrick". Everything was as I had thought exept for the story, and what a tale to be told. This film did not entertain, it inquired. The film seemed to ask me how I felt about my love life, my sexuality, my feelings toward infidelity. No other film has ever questioned me, no other story or mix of characters has ever made me question my relationship with my girlfriend. This one did. Even though I know that I will never come into contact with the same things Dr. Bill saw and experienced, I know what it feels like to desire other women and my fear of being cheated on. I was happy to see that the film was not a festival of sex like everyone made it out to be, I knew Stanley was better than that. Stanley Kubrick has always managed to find the dark side to any given situation, he knows that darkness is in us all, and "Eyes Wide Shut" stays faithful to that dark side of humanity. This film is deep, thought provoking and fascinating. Stanley Kubrick has capped off his legendary career with a simply remarkable work of art, and his most deeply personal and human story. I think this movie is wonderful. -- 7/18/99

Roberto Salgado (Laundry189@aol.com) wrote:

I work at a small art-house cinema, which is where this movie should be. We get a much more intelligent and appreciative audience than the usual multiplex herd. I have heard so many people ignorantly say that this movie sucks. What were they expecting? the usual hollywood bullshit? This is a Kubrick film, and thus it requires thought. It shouldn't have been hyped like it was either; I have long appreciated Kubrick as the greatest filmmaker ever (I even took a film class at USC devoted entirely to the cinema of Stanley Kubrick), but all the hype just made me ready for dissappointment. But I was ecsatic to see that the film was another Kubrick masterpiece. It is a superb finale to a magnificent oeuvre. I came out of the theatre jumping around and trembling, utterly in awe of the late genius. I will see it as many times as I can before it leaves the theatres because the dim multiplex herd won't support it. -- 06-19-99

John (doctors18@hotmail.com) wrote:

This movie was wonderful. I thought that it was one of his best. My favorite Kubrick movies are Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange. I put this movie up there with them. I thought the direction was awesome. The story should not be changed. The acting was superb. The score could not be better. A lot of people are saying that it was slow moving but I believe these people did not get the pure impact of each scene and how important they were. It was beautifully made and very poignant. I will recommend this to anyone. My only wish is that I could of seen it in it entirety but I would have to leave the country. I can only hope that they will have the directors cut out to rent. -- 7/18/99

Seth Gainer (seffro@hotmail.com) wrote:

Eyes Wide Shut- I've seen this movie two times since it's been out, and I still don't think i've had enough of it. Cruise and Kidman are phenomenal and the plot is so thick you could cut it with a knife. What makes me grin is hearing the audience complain about the ending, I even heard one gentleman saying, "He's lucky he's dead...he doesn't have to read the reviews!" It amazes me to see how dead America's audience is today. The movie is left open for the audience to ponder what happens next, and no one can handle that. Kubrick's vision of obsession and jealousy is a very dirty one; it makes one wonder what is out there and is it possible at all to trust anyone you fall in love with. I must say that his last film was certainly his best one, but it's a shame that he isn't around to make any more. -- 7-19-99

angelkuro (darthvulva@hotmail.com) wrote:

It's been a couple of hours since I watched EWS and it's haunting and visceral landscape of humanity and it's sexuality is still reeling through my head. At first I was hesitant to see it just for the fact that in knowing it's Kubrick's last film, but no one can deny themselves for too long to keep from dwelving into his world. In the end we learn it's ours staring right at us. From what I get from it mostly is an influence from Macbeth, ecspecially the Nicole Kidman character. A morally ambiguous disturbed woman who's words and dreams affect the lives around her, yet can relate to reality after a short time, leaving those around her in a daze. Tom Cruise did a great job of emoting that utter feeling of sheer helplessness, as he sits across from her quietly listening to every gut wrenching detail of her dreams, to then go out and react. Once Scorsese was asked what he felt was his most violent film and he responded with "The Age Of Innocence", because of the emotional turmoil the characters go through. I found myself while viewing Eyes Wide Shut rubbing my temples and frowning at the emotional nudity as opposed to the physical. It was a truly powerful and grueling experience that is so identified with his last three films, only at last it's as though he left this world through this film with a final understanding and serenity of what makes us tick. The themes going from man objectifying himself and evolving, to man accepting his fate as to what he is(due to his situation). After all that's what Kubrick was about. The transcending of current situations, whether physical, material or mental. In this case the masks from "Clockwork Orange" show up once again, but during the hypnotically fantastic (and controversial)"venetian masked ball" sequence. His final film deals with the mysterious frontier of matrimony, and what people do to keep it alive. I have never seen characters so self-deconstructive and bare. Of course days after you'll be asking yourself about certain mechanics of the story. Ecspecially pertaining to all the events that happen in the first party sequence, where DrHaford(Tom Cruise) is asked by two flirtatious young models if he's ever wondered what's at "the end of the rainbow", to then later on notice the costume shop where some interesting events occur is called "the Rainbow". The whole central theme is how real are our dreams? The creepy Ziegler character is the voice of reason we trust so much in our lives, to then suddenly "wake up" and become wary of it. He is played by director and kubrick friend Sydney Pollack, who seems to dictate the whole scenario. Perhaps that is why Kubrick got a director to play the role. But the dream like style in the scenes he inhabits are so entrancing you sit in awe at Kubrick's utilization of current technology, pertaining to film stocks, lenses etc. At one time Kubrick devised his own equipment to suit his needs technically. These inventions changed the film industry and are still being used to this day. Now the advancements are being done by others almost on a daily basis. He has not only influenced the conscious society, he has infulenced others to spread their wings without compromise to a vision. In EWS it seems that Stanley has relaxed a bit and learned to enjoy the fruits of his 40 year labour. While watching EWS I couldn't help but realize that the maybe the world is finally catching up to Stanley. -- july 19th 99

Pete Kachinske (maxsdad@prodigy.net) wrote:

I don't believe I can add much to some of the excellent observations and reviews which appear on this page, although something has been troubling me since I saw the film on Friday. I certainly don't want to sound like Oliver Stone, but didn't the "Pool Room" scene towards the end seem entirely out-of-place? For those of you that have not read the book, it appears to be the only scene which varies from the novellette (aside from some needed modernization and the addition of the X-mas party in the beginning, this may be the closest he has ever followed the original work). To me, Zigler's explanation of the recent events is un-Kubrickesque. It is almost as if Kubrick would of added a scene to "2001" where Bowman & Poole sitting around on the bridge discussing the effect that the monolith has had on world history and why they have been enlisted to follow it into space. Is it possible that the scene was added at some point after SK's untimely death? Does it have anything to do with Daly & Semel's resignation from WB (in shame maybe?). And those mysterious words on Christiane's web-site "...and when the time comes that I feel I must say more, I will." Furthermore, Dr. Harford was summoned to Zigler's via cell-phone after viewing the body in the morgue. I would think that a perfectionist like Stanley would know that you can't use a cell-phone in a hospital. Is it possible that this scene was added on at some point because some suit felt that the film didn't explain the story well-enough to the average film-goer? Without that scene, the film would retain it's "did it actually happen or is this all in my mind" state and leave many more questions to be answered by the viewer. After all, isn't that what Stanley was all about? Please don't tell me I'm crazy.... Pete In Cleveland -- 07-19-99

Keith Rondinelli (keith@sonicnet.com) wrote:

Great film, but not Kubrick's best, and the film definitely was NOT finished, contrary to what the movie studio and Cruise would like you to believe. There were some very sloppy moments; and whatever can be said about Kubrick, if anything, he wasn't sloppy. He was neat to the point of razor-like precision, and this movie felt like it still needed to be sharpened. Otherwise very haunting, beautiful, and thought provoking, which puts it miles ahead of the crap that is shoveled out of Hollywood on a weekly basis. -- 7/19/99

Don Hoffman (hoffmania@hotmail.com) wrote:

"Vertigo" meets "Risky Business" with a little "After Hours" thrown in for good measure. The Hitchcock-style mystery is compelling. The pretty boy acting of Cruise isn't. Not nearly as controversial as its hype suggests. Despite the slow burn of the story and well-done dialogue about the nature of honesty in marriage, Kurbrick has gone out with a whimper. -- July 19, 1999

Aaron Day (wollig@yahoo.com) wrote:

The Review Once again, Stanley Kubrick is ahead of his time. No doubt, this film will be abhorred by thousands but loved by hundreds. In the interest of time, I will only comment on a few of the most important aspects of the film In his review, Roger Ebert stated, “[t]he film has the structure of a thriller, with the possibility that conspiracies and murders have taken place. It also resembles a nightmare; a series of strange characters drift in and out of focus…” This is an amazing feature of the film. One goes out to watch a movie but instead returns home with an experience. As I was watching it I kept thinking, “man am I tired and uncomfortable.. where is this going? Wow, this is a great scene…Why do I really not care where this is going? Why am I completely satisfied? Shouldn’t I be bored? Shouldn’t I be upset with the pace or the fact that I do not know where this is going?” Upon reflection, I had this sensation in the first scene…damn it was long. Then, I kept the sensation but by the 3rd hour I had given up my protest. I was completely under the control of the film… “OK you win. I will watch.” It’s interesting, as he begins the movie he does two things. First, he takes advantage of the fresh audience willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and he abuses them. He tests the bounds of their patience. In doing so, he accomplishes his second objective. He TEACHES the viewer how to watch his film. At the beginning of the film, he demands extraordinary patience and for the rest of the film he gently asks for it. The audience will then surrender it because they now have learned how to view the film. This confirms what I have previously decided about 2001 and Clockwork. With Stanley Kubrick’s most indulgent films, one should view them lounging preferably in lost of down in front of big screen. But a pillow on the floor with a 28” color will do just fine. Ebert also makes the comment: “The reconciliation at the end of the film is the one scene that doesn't work; a film that intrigues us because of its loose ends shouldn't try to tidy up.” I think he is correct. But, I would like to know more about how this scene came about. Was it a Hollywood compromise or was it part of Kubrick’s vision? I think a less harsh interpretation of the choice would be that the scene works like reality when you wake from a nightmare. There is a sense of relief and reconciliation –a return to candy land or daily life in the toy store, if you will. Moreover, the sights and sounds of the store serve this function reemphasizing this feeling of relief and normalcy. The Actors Nicole Kidman has never looked more beautiful on film. Her appearance and presence blended wonderfully with the film. Yet, her overall performance was somewhat of a disappointment the may or may not be her fault since she was (I assume) heavily directed. In the beginning the movie focuses on her sexuality, however, she played this scene too trashy I think. She was too overtly sexual -almost freakish. The character established in this scene could not be the same one that is so hurt by the news of her husband’s 24 hour adventure. Throughout the movie I kept asking, “who is she?” I am left wondering if Nicole Kidman ever decided. The confusion is confounded by the way she played the pot smoking – true confessions scene. In his column Ebert, too noted the unfortunate disconnect between the way Nicole played this scene and the way it might take place in real life. This was just confusing…is she high? Is this her personality? How do we interpret the import of this story (revelation?) in the context of their marriage? Eyes Wide Shut demonstrates the amazing directability of Tom Cruise. I was struck in the first scene about how well Tom Cruise had developed the Kubrick cadence to his speech. To see an actor of Tom’s stature and stage in his career to perform with such fidelity to his director and piece is refreshing. No, it’s more than that. Tom Cruise is a great actor period. How he got past his amazing good looks and celebrity status to achieve what he regularly achieves on film –I’ll never know. He played the part of the good doctor selflessly. He brought out such complexity in character within the first scene (at the party) that I kept asking the question “who is he?” The difference between his performance and Nicole’s was that Tom kept answering the question as he created more. Unfortunately, Nicole never answered those questions, so I stopped caring. The Themes Kubrick achieved greatness in his exploration of human sexuality. Kubrick navigated the sexual depths of one’s mind and of sexuality itself without ever stooping to the level of a Basic Instinct type crap attempted in the past. As Ebert points out, “The film has two running jokes, both quiet ones: Almost everyone who sees Bill, both male and female, reacts to him sexually.” I thought this was wonderful. They did an excellent job. I also found it interesting that the question of the Doctor’s sexuality itself was often raised. Also, the fact that the audience had to interpret the relationship between Mr. Nightingale and the Doctor was very interesting. The viewer thinks… “hey why are they touching each other? Is he? Naaa. They are just old school buddies—guys show affection that way.. Sex. Not Sex. Boy it can be confusing to interpret these things sometimes.” Ebert also noted, “Kubrick's great achievement in the film is to find and hold an odd, unsettling, sometimes erotic tone for the doctor's strange encounters.” I can’t add to this. I just wanted to point it out. Kubrick was a genius at this. Visually, the film was wonderful. Camera angles, colors, lights it was Kubrick. Remember the effect of all the backlighting? The stairs, the curtains, the tree in his office…the tree in the girl’s apartment, the window to the street in the upstairs of the costume shop, the room with the daughter and the Japanese businessmen and the room with the costume mannequins. All of the primary colors! I often thought back to the beauty of the white of the ship and red of HAL in 2001 and the backlighting employed in the bar scene of Clockwork as I watched Eyes Wide Shut unfold. Each scene was a work of art as well. As Ebert commented: "Kubrick pays special attention to each individual scene. He makes a deliberate choice, I think, not to roll them together into an ongoing story, but to make each one a destination--to give each encounter the intensity of a dream in which this moment is clear but it's hard to remember where we've come from or guess what comes next." This is well put by Roger Ebert. The ability to make every scene important and valuable in its own right is a hallmark of Kubrick’s work. Fortunately, this feature in film has not ceased with the loss of Kubrick. One, can find similar ability in the recent Boogie Nights. Kubrick did however capture the feeling of a dream. And the brilliance lies in the fact that he does so without us knowing it! He builds upon this ability which he first demonstrated in Clockwork Orange and 2001. Yet, it is more interesting in Eyes Wide Shut because this film takes place in the present. The audience has little warning that they are entering a dream. Eyes Wide Shut will be a controversy for many reasons and within many circles. The irony is that the art of Kubrick extends into the controversy itself. What critics will dislike about the movie, Kubrick did on purpose. What politicians dislike about the movie, will prove his point: Sexuality, Morality, Relationships, Individuality are all complex and confusing facets of our existence and they can only be explored and negotiated at the level of the individual. A fig leave, or in this case, post production computer graphics can do little to diminish the odd, contradictory, confusing, and unstoppable sexuality that lies within each one of us. Aaron Day -- 07-19-99

Perry

A work of supreme craftsmanship. Though I was never once frightened, this may be the best horror film I've ever seen, because thinking about it frightens me NOW. What is inside of our deepest thoughts, despite what we tell ourselves we think? We've all had dreams that embarrass and frighten us; how did our minds come up them? Like sexual fantasies we would never reveal, such dream thoughts were in our minds all along. This film will be talked about more than any other ever made. -- 7-19

Andy Dimond (redwindnomad@hotmail.com) wrote:

WOW. That sums up my reaction. Kubrick has done it again, successfully adapting Dream Story into Dream Film. Eyes Wide Shut is easily the best film of the past decade. Love the website. -- 7/19/99

Travis Besst (sboyd1@neo.rr.com) wrote:

I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" on opening night and had to smile inwardly at all the youth around me who had obviously taken a night off from seeing "American Pie" one more time to see Tom and Nicole's "9 1/2 Weeks". I knew they were in for a jarring disappointment. As for myself I can only say, having only seen the film once, that the initiial disappointment I felt (inevitable for a film I've been waiting for 12 years) wore of quickly as I realized that Kubrick had skillfully injected me with themes and images that I just couldn't shake. It is real Kubrick and I must see it again. Of all the films I've seen in a theater in recent memory, only "The Thin Red Line" and "Boogie Nights" have inspired me to make the same return trip. High praise indeed. I haven't the time or skill to write as insightful the critical analyses as some others have in this forum so I won't bother. I would like to comment on one aspect of the film that hasn't been mentioned much but which jumped out at me as a major, if not THE major, theme. Throughout the film Kubrick presents objectified women victimized by male sexual brutality. He also suggests this aggresive sexual hostility towards women exsists in the dark hearts of of even the most amiable of men( the casting of the good-guy Sidney Pollack as the film's evil personified is brilliant). Male sexual id unleashed is symbolically represented by the masked ritual in the palacial estate(Of course it seems ridiculous, it's meant to). Bill's tormenting fantasy of his wife's imagined infidelity becomes increasingly rigorous (violent?). The lingering closeup of a debauched, father-pimped young girl ( Leelee Sobieski ) grinning is chilling. But the most disturbing example is the woman who offers herself to a brutal gangbang in order to "redeem" Cruise's character. Pollack's character even says at one point "Nothing happened to her that didn't happen before. She had her brains fucked out." The suggestion that the men at the "orgy" eagerly displaced their anger at Harford onto this girl in a hostile sexual assault is far more disturbing than if they had merely murdered her. The girl's subsequent drug overdose suggests the horrifying extent of her humiliation. Also that this girl is later revealed to have been a "former beauty queen" seems to suggests society's complicitness in all of this. In light of this, that Kubrick deliberately inserts a shot of the Harford's young daughter excitedly clutching a Barbiedoll tells me that this ending isn't as hopeful as some have interpreted it. I now this sounds like feminist clap-trap, but I'm a 28 year old male and this aspect of the film seemed obvious to me. I'm sure subsequent viewings will reveal more themes, humor, and haunting images and nuances. I'm not sure yet where this film ranks Kubrick's body-of-work, but I do know that film experiences of this richness are a rare bird at the cineplex these days. -- 7/19/99

Kyle (playboy@megsinet.net) wrote:

All I can say is that I am amazed!. The film had a number of flaws most of which have been mentioned in other's reviews, but remarkably this is still a great film. I think it is a great ending to the career of a true auteur. I was glad to see I was not the only one has thought nothing but this film since seeing it. I saw it again today, and believe me the second time around is even better. For me, this movie feels like it could be addictive. I have to see it again and soon! Finally a movie that lives up its hype. Kyle --

Andrew Hager (hager@qcol.net) wrote:

I saw the film on opening night and boy as I riveted. This movie is a must for Kubrick fans as it shows elements of all of the master's previous work. it is also his most hopeful and moral film, one with Protestant morality that shines through... As a kubrick fan, i loved it... -- July 20, 1999

Larry Coressel (coressel@erinet.com) wrote:

I find it interesting that some viewers are saying the final scene in EWS is a "happy ending." It is no happier and ending that when Alex said "I was cured alright" in A Clockwork Orange. Sure, he was cured, but only to go back to doing what he was up to at the beginning of the film! The final beat of EWS was brilliant. We follow them through this odyssey, and when it's over, it ain't. They end up back where they started, only now they are in slightly altered form. And perhaps wiser for the wear. Perhaps not. "What do we do now?" "Fuck." Just as obsessively and possessively as they have for years... -- 7/20/99

Larry Coressel (coressel@erinet.com) wrote:

P.S.- I LOVE THIS FILM! -- 7/20/99

Alex

Kubrick and his (puply)devices were in effect way before Quentin Tarantino ever picked up a camera. I don't have time to say much more other than that I was brought to tears during the ritual scene at the party. Something Woody and Quentin (although I respect them both)have never or will ever do. -- 7/20/99

Justin (grand_moff73@hotmail.com) wrote:

I will not go on into extreme detail, but I do want to add to the stream of praise. Eyes Wide Shut was an incredible journey and fits in nicely with all of Kubrick's work. Most of the people I work with didn't like it and were shocked that I saw it twice opening weekend. No matter. EWS was brilliant. End of story.... -- 7/20/99

Lawrence (msge8@aol.com) wrote:

This is basically a science fiction movie. Beautiful people throwing themselves at you,hookers who don't want money (and happen to be beautiful). An orgy that just happens to have the same person attending who you just saw at a party. And a death by someone he just saw at a party. But if you throw out all believability, wasn't a bad movie. -- July 20, 1999

MovieDan (dandoug@concentric.net) wrote:

really great piece of work --

Blake (Uberfloyd@aol.com) wrote:

Eyes Wide Shut is an exquisite telling of a very old story. Cruise encounters temptation in many forms. These encounters are strung together in a mind boggling flury of inuendo's and metaphors. To appreciate this film is to appreciate the well crafted work of an artist. The story of temptation is played out on several levels until the realities of the movie eventually appear in a tranced dream like state where nothing seems grounded. To sort your way through this deception and indulgence of the senses will lead to the experience of enjoying a beautiful movie in a style only Kubrick was capable of. We should mourn his loss. -- 7/20/99

prova (prova@prova.prova) wrote:

prova prova prova -- prova

david harrington (davidh@epiclearning.com) wrote:

wow..... I saw it again last night for the 2nd time Why do so many people think it sucks? Are they blind or have they never experienced what Cruise is going through? God, I wish he was still alive so I could look forward to his next and next and.... -- 7/21/99

david harrington (davidh@epiclearning.com) wrote:

BTW: Has anyone heard that a director's cut will be available (maybe on dvd)? Feel free to email me with info.... -- 7/21/99

Stephanie (samiam5317@aol.com) wrote:

I loved the film. I was particularly impressed with the way that SK presented the irony inherent in all marriage – the great harm and pain that we will willingly inflict on the one person that we are drawn to over all others. I was in awe watching the fight between the Hartfords progress from the simple misspoken phrase to the denial of any wrongdoing to the out and out thrust of pure bile at one another. This is one of the nasty secrets of marriage – we are seemingly unable to express love without expressing hate towards one another. We are unable to love one another “enough” to prevent this – which seemed to be an ongoing theme in film – this notion of when things would be “enough.” The Hartfords were well off, but they weren’t wealthy “enough,” when was Bill going to go through “enough” after the revelation, were the ornamentations of Christmas ever going to be “enough” for everyone. Very fitting for a filmmaker that will never be able to provide enough of his genius for the rest of us that simply try to understand. -- 7/21/99

Wyatt Ben Bernstein (wyattbenbern@hotmail.com) wrote:

What an amazing film. My mind was racing the entire time. Stanley Kubrick has added another masterpiece to his list. Visually stunning, I never lost interest in this powerful psychological peeling of a married couple. The digital creations were unacceptable though. They should have left it the way Stanley intended. I cannot get that party scene out of my mind. Stanley truly was a master visionary genius. I will miss him. -- 7/21/99

mjaller

Purely Kubrick! Excellent photography. Sex secondary to jealousy theme -- 7/22/99

Michael Garris (MGarris@webmail.colgate.edu) wrote:

Eyes Wide Shut could have also been called eyes closed open. This was about the human experience and the battle between the subconcious and concious, the dream state and "reality". What is reality? That is the question that Kubrick is dealing with. Is it the characters subconcious desires and imaginings that should they should be judged upon or their physical actions. In reality neither of them ever cheat on one another, yet the dynamics of their relationship is drastically changed by the end of the movie. I think Kubrick is not taking sides on which state of mind is more real than the other. Rather he is revealing the tensions that the two realities have with one another. That is the friction created by Kidmans dreams and than Cruise's reality. These two characters on a normal basis are living with their Eyes wide shut. In other words they live their mundane lives, he a doctor she a house wife, without being aware of what is going on beyond this veil of ordinariness. When finally Kidman opens the subconcious world after smoking pot, perhaps Kubricks stand on the capacity of marijuana to open up to the subconcious, they reach a new level of awareness. The whole storyline concerning this sexual cult show the potential of actualizing ones subconcious desires if you have the resources. In other words extreme power, influence, and money to actually create ones subconcious world of desires. Finally the movie concludes with the two in a toy store. How ironic that they speak of how they are going to live in reality, a more aware reality, when they are in the middle of childs fantasy land. Although this is the more practical choice for the two of them it is not reality it is simply another type of fantasy that ignores deeper feelings. -- 7/23

austin (paige@clover.net) wrote:

this was one of the most mysterious and intriguing movies ever. i recommend everyone to see it. fine holiday fun!!! -- 7/28/99

John Jansen (john_jansen@playstation.sony.com) wrote:

I've now seen "Eyes Wide Shut" twice and have spent considerable time thinking and probing the details of the film. My first reaction was enthrallment and puzzlement. Cutting to the chase, it's two hours and forty minutes of pure Kubrick. Every frame. Every cue. On the second viewing, the pace accelerated considerably, the building blocks of the scenes made more sense while the multiple details and treasures of the film began to open up. From the opening moments, you are left in little doubt that you are in the hands of a master filmmaker with deliberate control and confidence. The blink-of-an-eye glimpse of a woman undressing followed by the film's title sets up the entire program. This is a voyeurs journey. Two beautiful people prepare for a dress-up Christmas party. The opening "mundane" scenes and the naturalness of a couple getting ready for a party...the casual and banal conversations...it all seemed so real and removed from "movie" acting. How great it is that a movie dares to show a couple together in a bathroom, with her asking how she looks while on the toilet, while the husband just answers her in the same ordinary mundane way, not even paying attention to her, consumed by his own image. This is a spark for Alice. Maybe the spark that lights the film into action. Since the film was based on an Arthur Schtizner novel called "Traumaville", which was translated in America as "Rhapsody: A Dream Novel", it seems that dreams are the key element here. The fine line between dreams and reality are explored. Cruise's journey will be a reality dream or waking nightmare. The film is a puzzler, to be sure, but what makes Kubrick's films so wonderful for the curiously inclined viewer is that even after several repeat viewings, you will find yourself uncovering all sorts of new information. This film definitely falls into that category, more so than ANY film of recent memory. This one doesn't fit into any neat or familiar mold. I can't think of any other film that recalls the kind of experience this film is going for. But it is intended to ask questions. Probe thought. Get you thinking. And it is very successful at that. There are no right or wrong answers. Just what you mine out of it. Since there is NOTHING in a Kubrick film by chance or mistake, the exploration of ideas and situations become a treasure hunt of discovery. The New York apartment is based on the actual apartment shared by Kubrick and his wife Christiane, who herself is an accomplished painter, whose work hangs on the walls of the apartment. Kubrick's daughter Katherina also contributed paintings. To give you an idea on how Kubrick works, when he cast Vinessa Shaw as the prostitute, he asked multiple questions about her studies in school. When she replied she studied Sociology, he carefully planted an "Introduction to..." book on her shelf. It can be seen when Crusie talks on the phone. It's this type of layering that allows the viewer to examine each and every element in the film. Actor and character identities are interwoven. This is a film as much about subtext as narrative storytelling. Although this is a serious film about sexual yearnings, one that often walks and flirts with ridicule while keeping a surrealness and gravity throughout, there is always a slight humor in Kubrick's work. When the child asks if she can stay up late and watch "The Nutcracker", I had a great laugh. Because Cruise is about to experience the ultimate "ball" cracker himself very soon. Even the name Bill brought a little laughter whenever the character was addressed. An intentional mundane joke on names? Even when Dr. Bill flashed his credentials brought extra chuckles. "Everything seemed unreal: his home, his wife, his child, his profession, and even he himself, mechanically walking along through the nocturnal streets with his thoughts roaming through space," wrote Schnitzler, describing the erotically charged odyssey that Kubrick takes us on. With each step and each scene, the films glides into a similarly mysterious realm, unlocking new doors and paths to redemption. Music also plays a humorous role. We hear "I'm in the Mood for Love" and "I Only Have Eyes for You," playing as the Harfords mingle with the crowd, each being confronted by a sexual advance from strangers. Bill is even promised a trip "to the end of the rainbow". What Bill doesn't know is that in order to get there, he will have to journey through an abyss where sex and death an inextricably interwoven. Notice how "rainbow" figures into the name of the costume shop. Like a dream, small and odd details are layered into the narrative only to be revealed in later encounters. The Christmas lights only help to create the surreal atmosphere as bold red and blue colors spring to life. The door to the prostitute's apartment is red. The Hartford's bathroom is lit cool blue (the Blue Room?). Even the purple dress worn by the prostitute is also the color of the sheets Alice sleeps on. I'm sure after repeated viewings one could map ALL the subtle connections. The cast here is up for the game and challenge of the work. All the supporting players provide the perfect balance to Dr. Bill's journeyman. Even Leelee Sobieski as the naughty daughter of of the costume shop owner perfectly captures what Schnitzler describes " the smile of impish desire". The first conversation scene when she revealed her "secret" left me stunned. Wonderful to see "pot" used for such a probing dissection. Kidman here is nothing short of extrodinary. There is a close up which frames Kidman to the far right of the screen, as her story inches closer in detail that leaves me haunted. The reaction on Cruise's face was astonishing--giving us the closest thing to a "Kubrick stare" in the film. But this stare probes further than insanity (or does it?) and dives deep into the confidence and fears of every man. One thing Kubrick did brilliantly (among others) was show how a conversation with a woman, no matter how small or touching...can be turned around on the man in an instant. I've been waiting for a filmmaker to capture this on film for a long time. Leave it to Kubrick to break this ground. Is Bill aroused by female nudity while examining his patients? At the party, he cares for the od girl, never seeming to notice her nudity, but still has a careful interest in her. When Alice asks Bill, he protests that sex may be too near to death for comfort, which pretty much sums up the sex and death intertwined relationship. Even later on, in a morgue, when he examines Amanda, he bends to kiss a dead woman and discovers the taboo pleasure of necrophilia, which seems to serve as the final installment of his sexual journey. The story seems to be about a couple who cannot communicate. They know how to make love and do love each other...but the darker corners of their desires and dreams are not connecting. Cruise's journey can be taken literally or in a dream like state. Notice how her orgy dream and what he see's at the orgy are similar. Does she know? The novel would probably help any interested viewer of the film to unlock some of the key ideas. In fact, the film follows the original story very closely. (it took place in Vienna at the turn of the century. A doctor and wife go to a costume ball, are hit on by others, then the wife confesses a secret to the husband...which sends him on a journey of discovery about himself and his own jealously and obsessions. In the end, husband and wife stay up all night discussing their own fears, and are greeted by their daughter in the morning. (maybe this was a little too neat for Kubrick. See Frederick Raphael's book "Eyes Wide Open" for details on the construction of the script) In Schitzner's novel, he stressed the importance of dreams and fantasies in a relationship. In fact, one could assess that the entire story is in the form of one long dream. Now the film version roots itself in reality, which I thinks makes the dream state all the more real. There is no fuzzy 'flashback' type transition or other effect. Both states are weaved seamlessley together. I'm less sure about the "thriller" aspect of the story. But further thought has made me realize that each event leads to another. Man follows Dr. Bill, he buys paper, hides in coffee shop, reads about girl in hospital, etc. There is a kind of connect the dots to his journey. He must face all his sexual desires and dreams in order to come out the other end, then he must learn to share. Fear is a key part of dreams. It often takes us into areas where we feel frightened for our lives, even though we are dreaming. The film wants to explore this. Masks are used to a chilling and stunning effect. Both Bill and Alice are obviously wearing masks in their day-to-day life. The masks at the party come to life in surreal ways, probing Bill with stares of unknown origin. The mask at the end is also causing perplexed reactions. However, in the novel, the wife finds the mask and places it on the pillow to challenge her husband into revealing HIS dreams and desires. The wife somehow KNOWS his journey, but want him to confess to HER what it all is. For her own sexual satisfaction? Maybe. Isn't the key to a relationship a partnership of balance and trust? The hidden mask is an enigma. Why did Kubrick show it to us on the pillow BEFORE Cruise walks into the room? What preparation was intended for the viewer while we watch Bill mundanly come home, grab a beer from the fridge, then enter into his own bedroom (or icebox?) But this film contains no easy answers. Kubrick's approach to filmmaking has as much to do with reality as ambiguity. There will be A LOT of talk about this movie. And the great thing about a Kubrick film is that there is NO ONE interpretation, which I think enhances the personal experience. Notice how each encounter represents a type of sexual offer. The woman who's father has died. The hooker. The debutante. Even his masculinity is challenged by the punks on the street. Each encounter is disrupted by something (just like a dream?) that sends Cruise even deeper. This is climaxed by the orgy sequence. The woman offers to sacrifice herself, but you have to ask yourself how much is real, staged or just a dream. Here are some popular questions and my responses to them. 1) How do you think Dr. Bill's mask ended up on his pillow? Did his wife put it there (she does in the book)? But why? --Yes I think the wife found the mask and put it there. This is to challenge and confront him about his dreams and desires. Remember at the beginning, the wife knew exactly where his wallet was. That's because wives know everything (except his dreams and fantasies?) about what is in their house. She may have noticed the brown file folder laying out and gotten curious. But based from the novel, I'm pretty sure Alice put it there. The intent seems clear. 2) How did Amanda know it was Dr. Bill under that mask at the orgy? She obviously warned him to leave, but there was no way anyone could have told her it was him because she was in the circle as he arrived, and then she walked right up to him. Some speculate that the Amanda (Mandy) at the orgy is not the same Amanda that o.d.'s in the beginning. Apparently she has different nipples and hair color. --I think, and I'm not alone in this, that an acceptance of a dream-like state is essential to the workings of his journey. In dreams, events and people come and go and often you are not sure of the origin or relevance. But all of Cruise's encounters are replayed later, thus set up in reality and explored in a dream. Yes, I think it is Amanda at the orgy and YES she is the same girl that od's. (Just examine her nipples) Now how she knows it is him under the mask brings us back to the dream, where things like this are never known or explained. They just happen and we react. --The film is so tricky in presenting both reality and dreams as the same state. At least the look of the film is the same. But the surreal quality is presented throughout I think to put the audience in this state from the beginning. 3) Who do you think were the two masked people on the balcony that look at Dr. Bill and then nod to him? One was perhaps either Sidney Pollack's character or the Hungarian. I was toying with the fact that the female mask could have been Alice, Dr. Bill's wife, but I've thrown out that idea. And why did they nod at him? Perhaps they recognized him (from the name in the coat). But of course he did arrive late (purposely because of the costume rental owner) so he would be singled out. --I think the masked guy recognized a "new" visitor to the party. Even though they are masked and such, this "elite" group would know when someone new joins the party. Maybe that's why she picks him out? But again, in dreams, anything can happen and often does. --Also notice the great sly humor about sex in dreams. Each time Dr. Bill gets close to an encounter--something disrupts him--taking him into another direction. I know I have had this kind of experience in my own dreams. 4) What significance does Alice's "dream laughter" have to do with the prior orgy scene? She wakes up laughing and then proceeds to tell her husband that she dreamt she had sex with a bunch of men...one of them being the Naval officer. Hmmm. Was it just a coincidence that she dreamt of an "orgy" the same night her husband attended one? Her laughter is suspicious. If Dr. Bill was being lied to about the dangers of the orgy (as Pollack later admits) then this may warrant some laughter from the individuals involved. Perhaps Alice did have something to do with the orgy after all...but from a distance. --Alice's dreams and Dr. Bill's orgy are connected. Maybe the same. No coincidence. Somehow Alice is pushing Dr. Bill with her own dream confessions. She does this purposefully to attract a response or action. Her dream seems to almost reduce him to less of a man he thinks he is. The laughter part propels this. 5) Why did Nick Nightingale need a password? He claims he's played these parties a few times before, so they should recognize him. He never wears a mask. This is of course a way to get Dr. Bill to the orgy, but it still puzzles me...unless it was all a set-up involving Pollack, Nightingale, and others. --Everyone needed the password by way of formality, which a gathering of this type would almost certainly endorse. Adds to the secrecy of it all. THE LENGTH: Is the film too long? It IS a long haul, to be sure. On first viewing, I thought that maybe it could have been trimmed. On second viewing, the pace and length seemed more in focus. However, I think that if Kubrick had lived, he may have trimmed some of it after screening it for audiences (He had done this in the past for 2001 and The Shining). THE MUSIC: As per standard with a Kubrick film, each selection is carefully and purposefully chosen. The haunting piano notes seem to cause a variety of reactions, but I found them to be almost spine tingling. Ambient music by Joycelyn Pook (Confession scene, orgy, etc) was very effective. Other classical choices fit mood and atmosphere. THE CAMERA: Even though Kubrick had not made a film in 12 years, each camera set up and shot had the consistent style that has marked all of his work. The long one take shots and deliberate pacing draw the viewer into the film in unfamiliar ways. We ALSO become a part of the journey. Kubrick's films are almost like an experience, something beyond what most conventional movies shoot for. Each shot is almost a painting in itself. Lot's to consider here. THE ORGY: Mixed reactions on this one. Yes it is very creepy and always fascinating, but as earlier reports indicate, the 65 seconds "digital cover-up" as Dr. Bill walks through the house were not only VERY NOTICEABLE to me, but alas not needed. This is most noticeable when Dr. Bill walks into the room with the several women in an orgy, there is a single black cloaked figure blocking the action. But when we cut back to Dr. Bill walking through, the figure is no longer there. Also, when the girls in the circle de-robe, they are topless, but wearing a bottom. This also seems like a compromise. They should have been fully nude for the entire effect. Notice when the another girl in a mask approaches Dr. Bill, she is NOT wearing her bottoms. Also, when the girl who led him from the main room leaves, she return not wearing her bottoms (although she could have been busy in the interval) This is just technical nit-picking, but I think that the atmosphere and effectiveness was "watered down" by MPAA considerations. Maybe 12 women completely naked in a circle would have been too much. But considering Kubrick's other films, the fact they have on bottoms seems more cautionary than necessary. Overall, a very creepy and fascinating scene. Frederick Raphael reveals the origins of this scene in his book. Apparently, it was all made up and NOT based on actual events. But I have little doubt that this kind of activity and more occurs in the dark corners of human activity. THE ENDING: This is a film that does not end with easy answers or reassuring certainies. But the final scene and final line between Bill and Alice (for me) sums up everything with a humanity and compassion that is seldom seen in Kubrick's work. There is a sense of hope for the couple. "Life goes on," Pollack's character says cynically late in the film. "It always does, until it doesn't." With this sentiment, Kubrick has left a final and perhaps hopeful message. In what may be the riskiest film in his career, the man who could create a new universe with each film chooses the bedroom as the final frontier. All the mystery and mystique of sexuality becomes a canvas of exploration and ideas. Kubrick's final film will likely have a long shelf life like his others. Remember "Barry Lyndon" was pretty much received with mixed reviews and reactions, but it is the one film in the director's body of work that consistently surprises and impresses me with repeat viewings. It may THE example of a kind of cinema Kubrick was searching for. Same can be said for "Eyes Wide Shut". And while most films disappear from the mind in a matter of days, I feel that this film's haunting shadow will lurk long into the future. THE GAFFS: A popular topic among Kubrick fanatics. Although YES he is a perfectionist, as any filmmaker knows, certain inconsistencies DO occur when making a film. Especially when choosing a shot for performance instead of technical blocking perfection. Some obversations and questions include: Did you notice the crew member reflected in the mirrored column in the bathroom? In the newsgroup this has become the new "Shining" helicopter shadow. Also, apparently the billiard balls change positions, the same mailbox appears on every street, and the presents under Dr. Bill's tree move around by themselves. People are actually noticing this shit...and make a point to stress their existence. On the fun side, there's a business banner that says "Bowman", and a Mission Impossible video box that appears in the background of the pot smoking scene. Speaking of pot, I thought I saw a pot plant in their house...but I may have been mistaken. --I did not notice the figure in the mirror. Same with the presents. Billiard balls I considered, but ultimately forgot as I was watching the performances. Although Pollack does change positions while in the chair. Also, on the street, when the prostitute first walks up to Dr. Bill, camera angle changes and her arms are different. Does this matter? Ultimately not. With a Kubrick film it's interesting and fun to point out, but Kubrick always said he choice performance over anything thing else. So what's to debate about that? Nothing described distracted me from the overall viewing. THE CAMEO: Was that Stanley sitting in the background of the jazz club? Most people seem to think so (or hope so). --I saw this fellow also and considered the same thing. Although, his hair seemed different, he was wearing glasses. Maybe it is him, it LOOKS like him. Perhaps Stanley made a first and final appearance in one his films. Sadly, it was his last. -- 22 july 1999

scott

The people that do not appreciate this film are the same people that never knew what the subject matter was to begin with. Kubrick's people first identified the project as a thriller about sexual obsession and jealousy, not a glorified porno film featuring two hollywood stars. It deals with the origins of monogamy and the aim-inhibited sexual desires that Freud talks of in many of his works. Anyone who listens to the soliloquy that Kidman delivers and doesn't find their minds pondering the nuances of sexuality is kidding themselves or denying their own sexual instincts. Take a good look at the film with an open mind and Kubrick's genius will truely amaze you. --

Dan Leathers (snowy@nauticom.net) wrote:

A+ a 10! -- 7/23/99

Jeremy Wolfe (CONVICT_24601@HOTMAIL.COM) wrote:

Unrelenting like them man himself, Kubricks EWS is without appeal to any Hollywood contrivance - it is art. It's intensity is palpable, and it's zero tolerance policy for bullshit(no pseudo-emtional tap dancing)is refreshing, if not completely overwhelming. Not for one second in this film did I feel an inkling of a threat to my "will"ingness to suspend my disbelief. There was no "will"...just straight out acceptance. WHY? Kubrick made it real. He takes Cruise and Kidman, makes them be with each other day in, day out for two years and has them spit lines to each other that confront the truly basic truths and nightmarish fears of any married couple. My hat's off to the actors, the emotional stress of this film alone is a testament to their conviction as artists and to each other. Every scene, every moment, every word is blistering with a symbiosis of reality and subtle creative guidance. The score is seething, and acts as an aggressive punctuation to each rise in conflict. The cinematography is dynamic,yet there is a purity to every shot, a sort of clarity of vision that caries through despite the obvious changes lightplay and composition. I can say what and how a piece of art makes feel. I'm no technical genius, I just like good films. EWS is in my humble opinion a complete film, worthy of deeming a masterwork, and demanding its appreciation as a piece of cinematic artistry. -- July 22nd, 1999

chris (chrismon@umich.edu) wrote:

Nothing I can write will do justice to this film, nor can any words replace the emptiness I felt when the credits rolled and I realized that there will be no more Kubrick films. EWS is classic Kubrick and beyond, proving that a great artist can always innovate. This site is one of the few places I've seen intelligent reviews and commentary on this work. Relatively few critics or viewers have the necessary skills to evaluate this film. It requires too much attention to the details of visual and aural narrative that Kubrick mastered like no other film-maker. I cannot write a real review at this point. It will take me another couple of viewings before it can sink in. What is the point of a review anyway? This is a work of art that people who appreciate art will want to see. The only shortcoming I saw was the digital censoring of the ball scene. I sincerely hope that film lovers will roundly condemn this outrageous act of puritanical nonsense and force a release of an uncensored version. Even so, Kubrick has achieved another masterpiece that will have us talking and thinking forever. Thank you, Stanley, wherever you are. And thanks for maintaining this excellent site. -- 7/24/99

Frank M (bonehead48655@yahoo.com) wrote:

everyone expected a porno and a story showed up. Way to go Stanley! Im so glad im the only one in the theatre who loved it...He never caved in to audience expectations. That is the sighn of the TRUE artist. ***** (5 of 5 stars) -- 7/24/99

jason ferguson (glowforce@yahoo.com) wrote:

I waited as long as I could to put off seeing this film to get a good seat in a quiet room. At the end of the movie I had the worst back ache because I had not shifted in my seat the entire time. Leaving the theater I was so disappointed and depressed, not because of the movie (which was predictably incredable and Kubrick), but because thats it. No more. Nobody does it like Kubrick. -- 7/24/99

Matt Ford (MattEFord@aol.com) wrote:

Quite possibly the most visualy exciting film I have ever seen. Without a doubt the most exciting i have seen in years. Almost every frame of it could be displayed as a still photograph and retain its beauty. The use of color throughout the film brought back the feeling I had as a child when Dorothy opened the door on Oz. I hope that this is a step to free filmmakers, as the impresionists freed painters to paint what they feel not just what they see. In an almost completely full theatre, I didn't hear a single sound aside from gasps from the audience for the nearly 3 hours. The second we emerged as a crowd from the dark everyone burst into conversation. Love it or hate it, no one left the theatre without feeling something. I could praise further, but I will leave that task to the rest of you. I instead end with a message to Stanley, where-ever his spirit may be. Stanley, you are one screwed up guy, and I love every bit of it. I just was wondering, whats the signifigance of the Christmas trees? -- it's Saturday

ART (porchmonkey2001@hotmail.com) wrote:

Come, come, come my little droogies. Eyes Wide Shut may very well be the masterpiece of the master. Two years I have been waiting to see this highly anticipated film, for which Stanley had stopped the production of the promissing AI, and finally the day came. The movie did not exceed my expectations; it perfectly matched. But I'm not going to talk about the whole film. I would like to mention just one scene, which still gives me the shivers. I have seen the picture twice, first time on the opening night and then a couple of days after it. After Cruise and Kidman have a "serious"? conversation when they get high, Cruise gets a phone call from one of his patients. When he comes over to the woman, who called him, it is obvious that she is in love with the young, handsome doctor. The really disturbing part of the scene, however, is how her father dies. She tells him about it, and from that information, Cruise states that the man died peacefully in his sleep. Isn't that the exact description of Kubrick's unfortunate departure?! In a lot of his films (A Clockwork Orange is a perfect example) the theme of dying peacefully constantly reoccurs, and finally he is gone. I am not sure what to think or what point I am trying to make here, but perhaps the master prophecized his own death? Well, in any case, the film deserves at least two thumbs up, and like many other movies by Kubrick (perhaps all) requires multiple viewings. Many people with whom I went to see it found it boring and slowdeveloping and blah... blah... If someone tries to tell you anything of this sort, disregard and see it for yourself. Eyes Wide Shut truly is a piece of art, and if you are looking for something which is more than pure enterntaiment, the film is a must see. May Stanley Kubrick rest in peace, and although he had only made 13 films, he defined the concept of aesthetic cinema better than any other director. Enjoy his last painting. ART -- 07/25/99

Steve

A very painful experience for a Kubrick fan. His final film is disjointed, tedious and, given its subject matter, ineffectual. Even the visuals seemed somewhat lackluster or, at least, unspectacular, given the power and magic we've come to expect from Kubrick. The review by the NY Post critic on this homepage gives an accurate assessment of the film. :( -- 7-25-99

Honsill Jenkins (garhep@yahoo.com) wrote:

The best film of the 1999 movie year to date. Kubrick- the movie make who does not pander to the audience with systematic crowd pleasing scene's, but with his own personal vision. This movie is sure to get some negative reviews, as even "2001" and all other Kubrick movies have. A mysterious movie to be sure. -- 07/27/99

Jim (alien@iglou.com) wrote:

People going into Eyes Wide Shut expecting a sex film, or a film centered on sex, will be sadly disappointed. Sex is an important aspect of the film, but not the most intriguing and certainly not the source of the disturbed state in which one will leave the theater if they look beyond the naked bodies (and there aren't that many) and kinky sex (almost absent, unless you're a prude). If one watches Eyes Wide Shut for the sex alone, they'll soon realize they spent $7 for a dressed-up Red Shoe Diaries. The film cannot be appreciated in such simplistic terms. The film uses sex as a tool, a way to illustrate the similarities between dreams and reality. The characters exist in a world that looks like the wicked stepmother of our own. The streets are barren, the days and nights bleed into each other. It's the world as we see it inside our heads, inside of dreams. Real, not real, and realer than real, all at the same time. In this realer-than-real world, whether your eyes are open wide or tightly sealed, you see the same things. The film unravels in a seemingly illogical, improbable (and, yes, sometimes boring) series of events that, eerily, make perfect sense while, at the same time, making no sense at all. The dialogue is slow and repetitive, resembling the way we speak silently to ourselves. The plot moves as if being born, piece by piece, from someone's mind. Combined with Kubrick's almost painfully deliberate directing, it becomes an intimate, articulate presentation of the workings of another human's brain. A dream made tangible in the daylight. In the end, the film asserts that dreams and reality are not disparate entities. Dreams are as much a part of what we are, how we feel, and how we interact with others as the world outside of us. Dreams can hurt us, heal us, free us, or imprison us. At the end of the day, dreams are reality. My one gripe with the film is the sex, and I don't mean the digital masking, although I didn't see anything in the film that would warrant it. I've seen much "worse" in R-rated films, even without the CGI roadblocks. The "orgy" is meant to shock and disturb us. Kubrick obviously intended the scene to be too kinky for words, to be something we'd never allow ourselves to imagine outside the realm of dreams. But the sex involved is not that kinky. In a nutshell, it's a bunch of people having one-on-one missionary sex in different rooms of a very large house with a few people watching them. That's not disturbing. That's every night of the week on a webcam site. I think this failed attempt at shocking and disturbing makes the road to "getting" the film much rockier than Kubrick intended. And, certainly, the digital masking didn't make it any easier. But this is a small gripe, in no way reducing the beauty of the film or it's meaning. This may not be Kubrick's best film, but it is certainly his most intimate. -- 7-26-99

meggi magyar (?) wrote:

im stunned, dude! -- 2day

Jon (j_c_n@yahoo.com) wrote:

Yes, today would have been Mr. Kubrick's 71st birthday. Very sad. I've now seen EWS twice, and I still don't think I have a proper handle on it. Suffice to say that I enjoyed it more the 2nd time, and I still can't get it out of my head. I can't help thinking that if Kubrick were alive, he might have trimmed the last part (as he trimmed 19 minutes from 2001. However, as with most of his films, the viewer has to completely surrender to the film's own logic. I also can't help thinking that sex is a red herring here, and the film is really about class - in much the same way Barry Lyndon and The Shining are. They say the dream dreams the dreamer....nothing and no one are what it or they seem to be..... -- 7/26/99

Doug (ratt56@pacbell.net) wrote:

After reading all these reviews, I feel even more that EWS is the one of the biggest hype jobs of the nineties than I did when I left the theater. Did Kubrick actually edit this film before he died, and, if so, what was he thinking? The film felt to me like it was stuck together with scotch tape, and several scenes (notably the hooker and the grieving daughter who makes a pass at Tom Cruise) seemed designed to be "red herrings" that added absolutely nothing to the plot. I thought "Clockwork Orange" was a masterpiece when it came out and years ahead of its time. "Eyes Wide Shut" may be nice to look at visually, but that hardly qualifies it as a "work of art..." Nicle Kidman's performance (Was... that... supposed... to.... be... intense... or... what?) and a very confused script made the two years I waited to see this film a real disappointment for me. I also disagree with the people who say this film wasn't about sex... it was clearly a comment on contemporary morals and commitment... but the way it presented sex reminded me of an eighties issue of Playboy, with beautiful, large-breasted women (even the patient Tom Cruise is examining in his office looked like an airbrushed model). And that "shocking" revelation about AIDS... AIDS has been around for almost fifteen years! I'm amazed at how much people are analyzing and reading so much into this film. I think Kubrick's last movie is a failure... he was a great filmmaker and known for being a total perfectionist, and in this case, I think "EWS" was done so mechanically that there's very little life or real logic left to it. Just another opinion. -- July 27, 1999

Ethan G. Jones (precision69@usa.net) wrote:

It helps to both see a film several times, and collect opinions on it, when forming a solid opinion for oneself. Last night I saw EWS for the second time, and came to the realization of several things; The first was the reaffirmation that it really is a joy to view a film where there is no question that the director was thinking about ALL that occupies his frame and WHY it's there. The second is that a complex story is really there to be experienced subjectively and not pigeonholed like so much other bullshit we're often seduced into dropping nearly ten dollars for at the local cinema. The third is that I truly believe that any film artist should retain what's known as "final-cut", for there were several elements of the film, already suitably observed by the other members of your review page, that didn't "fit" given what we know and love and (dare I say), expect from Mr. Kubrick. I don't believe that these "red herrings" were entirely his doing. I have read the memoir by screenwrtiter Frederick Raphael, and there were many revealing things in it about Kubrick, and his intentions with the story. This informed my second viewing, but shouldn't have. In it, S.K. asks about a number of things;"..yes, but is there a movie in it?" Even about Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle he asks the same question to F.R. Regardless, EWS is a work of art and needs to be judged as such, through one's own eyes and no one else's. Would you believe what everyone said about the paintings in the Sistine Chapel? -- 7/27/99

cindy (cindy@aculink.net) wrote:

i thought it was stupid. it had no plot that made any sense whatsoever. why isn't there ever any nude men? -- 07-27-99

ERIC F.

Stanley kubrick's final film,EYES WIDE SHUT was a masterpiece ! kubrick did a wonderful job on the sets, the lighting, the story, everything was great about this film.It is so sad that we will never be able to see another film by Master film maker Stanley kubrick.If you haven't seen this film GO SEE IT !!!!!!! Thank God for Stanley Kubrick ! this film will go on to be another classic film, by a awesome filmaker at the peak of his craft. -- JULY 24,1999

Steve (schantos@msn.com) wrote:

As I've digested this film, all I can still really come away with is a profile of one woman's dysfunctional revelation and utter narcissism, and her husband's equally dysfunctional response to it. The entire odyssey is predicated on Alice's nuttiness to begin with and so makes it difficult, if not impossible, to invest in from the outset. I think SK presented some interesting facets of sexuality, sex, and the accompanying psychologies, but they were nothing new or astonishing. I hope we Kubrick fans will allow him shortcomings just like the rest of us. It doesn't diminish his considerable, past achievements to admit to oneself that he fell short of the mark here. Even so, Nicholson's appropriation of praise (from an NFL coach for his star player) for Kubrick still rings true - "If he wasn't in a class by himself, it don't take long to call the roll..." Maybe this film simply reinforces that all of us, even masters of psychology like SK, are unable to explain the mysteries and intricacies of sexuality in its entirety. -- 7-27

John (Jonancal@aol.com) wrote:

Yes I have a complaint ! I wrote my comments/review the day after I saw Eyes Wide Shuta week ago and yet my two cents worth never appeared in this entity. Do you pick and choose and heavan forbid even censor people's comments ? -- July 18, 1999

John (Jonancal@aol.com) wrote:

Well, my complaint made it in . . . maybe there is hope for my review. Although it was not his best, I thorougly enjoyed the movie especially the earliest part which I found very suspensful. K made N Kiddman the most sensual women I have ever seen in a movie bar none. The most difficult thing to accept though was Tom Cruise as a medical doctor - spy, pilot, handicapped veteran yes but Doctor No. The one thing that really pisses me off is that Kubrick sold out to the censors. I dont care if the impact was minor or not. This is a director who shoots and reshoots a scene over and over and over until it is exactly what he wants. How could he sell out just to get an acceptable rating ? ? ? Clockwork Orange is still his best and most on the cutting edge - especially when you consider when it was made ! ! ! -- July28 1999

E. Steven Fried (sfried@hotmail.com) wrote:

"Eyes Wide Shut" is one of the best Kubrick films I've seen and I completely adore it. I have been enjoying many of the comments on this site, as well as the IMDB, and find a greater wealth of intelligence and understanding here than in most critical reviews I've read. I really have nothing to add to the wonderful commentary on the film, but I do have a few questions and would love to hear anyone's response via e-mail. One of the things I found most intruiging about the film was Stanley's use of New York. As a long-time resident of the city I was stunned by the visual accuracy of the depiction, given that it was wholly created in England. Yes, it didn't look exactly like Lower Manhattan (more like a pastiche of that area and the Upper East Side), but the resemblance was remarkable. I kept wondering, as I was watching, how on earth did he pull this off? I could well imagine some of the streets simply being dressed in NYC trappings (i.e. lampposts, street signs, mail-boxes, trash-cans, newspaper vending machines, etc.), but there were wider shots, containing more detail, that seemed almost impossible to have been done as gussied up fabrications. I am thinking, in particular, of a scene where Cruise appears to be driving over the Verrazano bridge. Does anyone know if Kubrick had any scenic or location work done stateside? It certainly wouldn't have been the first time. I understand that for the helicopter scenics in "The Shining" he had a satellite feed hooked-up so he could direct from abroad. Was any such thing done for EWS? I know CGI could be an alternative explanation but, aside from the orgy scene, I didn't detect any use of computer generated effects. I would love as detailed a response as anyone can muster. Now, although I found the visual simulation of NYC to be quite stunning,I couldn't but help notice that the population in this city was quite overwhelmingly devoid of any non-white residents. Hell, Stan's New York is even whiter than Woody Allen's! Now, I know that Kubrick had been living in England for a long time and that he didn't get out as much as the average fella, but he was way too smart and plugged-in to overlook such a major detail (unlike Allen, who really does live in a fog of insulated luxury). So, I assume there was a reason why he chose such a Eurocentric vision of the city. My personal guess is that a) as an enormous Europhile he was simply drawn to Continental types and b) he wanted very much to forge a parallel between contemporary New York and early 20th century Vienna. Am I on the right track? -- 07/29/99

Doreen (djtwins2@aol.com) wrote:

thought the movie was to long,strange and sexually wierd and thought it was beneath her ; -- July 29, 1999

Julie (Julzee17@aol.com) wrote:

My husband and I tend to pick movies we go to see carefully since it is too expensive to just see anything and everything.He wanted to see EWS because he is a big Kubrick fan, especially of 2001, but I was a tad reluctant because I was listening to critics. Once again I have been reminded that I shouldn't listen to critics because they don't know much!!! My husband knew what to expect from a Kubrick film, and I decided to give EWS a chance. It was pretty compelling, thought provoking and not at all what I expected. I figured I'd have to sit thru Nicole Kidman disrobing at every turn, but that was not the case (critics!!).I don't particularly care for Kidman, she doesn't seem to have much depth as an actress, and I was bored waiting for her to finish her monologues. I think they could have gotten a better actress to play her role, one who would have been more Cruise's equal in talent. But since Tom basically carried the film, I could endure Nicole. I would have liked to see Tom nekkid as often as Nicole..but alas. Eyes Wide Shut is a rare movie, one that makes you question every scene and makes you draw your own conclusions..and everyone's conclusion is bound to be different. Too bad there aren't enough filmmakers out there who value an audience's mind instead of their wallet. We plan on renting some earlier Kubrick movies in order to expand my mind..if you want to be challenged in the theatre for a change instead of being mindlessly entertained, go see Eyes. -- 7/29/99

Diego Waisman (perceo@icubed.com) wrote:

As a apocaliptic and ending century masterpiece, Kubricks film gives to the audience that extreme feeling, as he usually did, that nothing really matters. Money, family, the society itself. Eye Wide Shut could have some flows as neverending scenes or cameramen reflections, but It's for sure one of the best Kubrick's films -- 07/30/99

CERisE...Thatsa Me (cerise@geocities.com) wrote:

After having seen Eyes Wide Shut 3 times, I think I'm well justified in saying that the 2nd time is really the best. It was such a well done movie, truly among Kubrick's best. I feel badly that it's picked up the air of a pornographic movie. I can't imagine anything further from the truth. I read somewhere that his wife said it has everything to do with fear and nothing to do with sex. I'm not quite sure that's the case, but someone needs to repeat it 8) The first time I saw it, my legs were a little shaky. A large part of the ambience is the music. Between the classical pieces early on, the jazz in the prostitute's apartment, and the eerie operatic pieces, this movie could have almost been silent and come off with the same effect. Oh, btw, I liked it a lot 8) -- July 30, 1999

Bobman (Magibob@yahoo.com) wrote:

This is not a porno flick as the critics would have you believe but an exercise into temptations denied. There is a very "unfinished" quality to this film. There are "ugly" cuts that one would not expect in a Kubrick film. The scene where Cruise's character rents a costume is not well acted and doesn't ring with truth. There are unfinished questions...what becomes the daughter of the deadman? who really is the woman at the ball, and how did she know who he was? Who was the nodding man?? Beyond these questions there were great elements in this film. The pot confession scene. My wife, and I laughed with recognition quite a bit during this as we had had similar conversations. Why she felt the need to psychically "hurt" him thru her confession is questionable but it drives the rest of the movie. Temptation and jealous revenge motivate him yet he is constantly thwarted by interruptions. Had these not occured, would he have succumbed? Kubrick is a master at giving you just enough to make you question and think, but leaving concrete answers open. This is a chilling film, and beautifully shot. I loved the music during the ball...very dramatic. The use of a piano score to underscore the absent "presence" of the pianist lends danger to the scene. But once again, nothing happens, as if the mundane lives we lead are just that, mundane though the world around us basks in the oil of involvement. Hollywood, leave the art of the Masters alone and give us the directors cut, whether it's nc-17 or unrated or what. The morals in this film, of committment, family, passion, even in the face of too much familiarity speak to us with out you having to censor it. Censor youself, let art live. -- 7/30/99

Dave Mitsky (djm28@psu.edu) wrote:

"Eyes Wide Shut" was surprisingly unerotic and was filled with stilted dialogue and even more stilted acting by Cruise and Kidman. Was this pretentious waste of time really directed by the same man who made "2001", "A Clockwork Orange", "Dr. Strangelove", "Paths of Glory", and "Spartacus"? Dave Mitsky -- 08/02/99

Greg Barone (gregbarone@prodigy.net) wrote:

As we read the mixed reviews and witness the poor box office performance of EWS, we should take heart in the fact that Kubrick himself seemed proud that his films take time to be appreciated. It is a testament to their originality. -- 8/2/99

jason valentin (jason.valentin@edu.gov.on.ca) wrote:

The Kubrick lighting alone makes this film a pleasure to watch. A deceptively deep story that I must see again. -- August 3

Damien

Eyes wide shut is magnificent! It's both depressing and amusing that the critics, including those who gave it positive reviews, don't "get" EWS. I think it will take quite a while for people to catch up to this film. Just one note- why do people believe that Sydney Pollack's explanation tied things up neatly. Nothing could be further from the truth! Oh, and the last line is brilliant! -- 7/4

Peter Waal (pwaal@lionsgate-ent.com) wrote:

This is a bad movie. I think 2001 and Clockwork Orange are two of the best films ever made. Eyes has some virtuoso MOMENTS. It also has some pretty lamentable ones, too. Mediocre Kubrick is painful to watch. -- 05August99

Greg Sherington (gregs@extrels.usyd.edu.au) wrote:

I must see it again. I left the cinema stunned. While all Kubrick films end on a unique and perplexing note, I felt that "Eyes Wide Shut" contained an ending that truly left the film open to the strongest degree of uncertainty, awe, wonder, and ambiguity any Kubrick film has instilled in me. I have never seen a film where I questioned the nature of reality versus a dream-like state so intensely. Following the climax of the orgy my appreciation of each frame strengthened as I tried to interpret the film's many levels. There is something going on. I think I know what the film's many mysteries are but I wish not to come to grips with them until at least a second viewing. I often wondered when it was reported that Kubrick believed that this was his best film ever. Now I know why. He has left the world a mysterious work of art that will undoubtedly be reassesed once the media hype has descended. Just a few things. Did anyone notice two characters wearing masks once Bill tried to come to terms with the night before? For instance, in the background of the coffee shop adjacent to the Jazz club, there is someone in the background whose reflection in the mirror behind Bill shows they're wearing a mask. Similarly, my girlfriend pointed out that in a distant shot of Bill entering the Hotel where Nightingale is supposed to be staying, there's someone who either passes the postbox outside or is putting mail in it, and they're wearing a mask. Just a dream? Also, Ziegler's conversation with Bill about the fact that the Orgy's threat was just a charade. I feel that Ziegler thinks Bill believes the woman that tried to warn him was the same that overdosed on a speedball at Ziegler's party. Clearly the woman in the morgue and the other were not the same. However, what's even more disturbing is when Bill stops to watch one of the proceedings at the Orgy one masked spectator walks up just behind him with a naked masked woman and gestures towards Bill. For my mind this second woman is the one who overdosed in the bathroom and the masked man is Ziegler. I haven't read all interpretations so it's probably not a new one. And, of course, where did the mask come from when Bill returns the second night. Ah, the beauty of Kubrick. Life is but a dreaming state. -- 6 August 1999

Greg Sherington (gregs@extrels.usyd.edu.au) wrote:

I'd also just like to add that I saw it in Australia without the digital figures. Thank the lord. Bill's progression through the various rooms was majestic and frightening at the same type. To have ridiculous figures masking the action would have been ludricrous. The film was rated 'R' in Australia which is the exact same as NC-17, except we have a separate category for pornography ('X' rating) I thought our Classification practices were lame. -- 6 August 1999

ADRON SEDILLOS (EGar407105@aol.com) wrote:

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a masterful film. I left the theatre witha sort of exhileration from finiall getting to see a truly great movie, which does.t happen often at all. Just as he had done every time before, Kubrick makes a film vastly different from the one which preceeded it, yet covers the same psychological territory as all the films he had made before. I found the atmosphere to be very well done. We go from a classy Christmas ball with soft music and joy then BAM! shock! A nude party guest is thrown into the screen who has O.D.'d. And a man who we thought was nice zipping up his pants to greet Dr. Bill in a secluded bathroom. From class to stark depravity like that! Such moments are classic in Kubrick's films and this one is no exception. Masterpiece? Maybe, maybe not. As time goes by we will see if the film holds up as well as the rest. Stanley kubrick's films are always the wine next to the Cool Aid at the party. Always better with another drink and always getting better with age. -- 8/4/99

Michael Smith

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a totally unique and spellbinding blend of reality and surrealism that lets me believe that art and man's quest for introspection are still alive. It is amazing that a man can see as far within himself as he could see into the furures of space, technology and evolution. The film will almost certainly flop, because it requires thought. Thank you, Stanly Kubrick, for showing us a little of your vision and a lot about ourselves. -- 8/9/99

artem (porchmonkey2001@hotmail.com) wrote:

The funny thing is that even the bad reviews are reviews. People are talking and thinking about Eyes Wide Shut and will keep talking and thinking about it for a while because they are amazed. It doesn't matter whether the audience likes the show or does not, what really matters is that people are strongly affected by the movie. Even those who give "bad" reviews still care to spend their time on this website to give a review. And mixed reviews are usually the sign of greatness and complexity of the work. I think Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket are the best movies by Stanley Kubrick. Although other movies by Kubrick also show human beings as they really are, those three are the most precise, intense, and haunting. Dreams, temptation, sexual obsession - whatever. Similarly to A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut is about animals. It is about us, fierce creatures motivated by rudimentary drives that are a killer instinct (FMJ), sexual desire (EWS), or both (A Clockwork Orange). People respond strongly to Kubrick's films because he paints an unsettling yet very precise psychological profile of any human being. Be it Alex Burgess, who adores the good, old, in-out, Joker, who would rather live in the world of shit than die, or Alice Harford, whose love for her husband is tender and sad, they are all perfect stereotypes of people who lived, live, and will live. Although oftentimes surreal, there is a lot of great actuality in Kubrick's films. Kubrick is Freud of modern film, and like Freud had been, Kubrick and his work will be worshipped and bellittled. But no matter what, both Kubrick and Freud made a break through in their field of study and that is why their existence is worth remembering and studying. Many human traits resemeble those of animals, and though we are aversed by certain types of behavior, we cannot change who we are, for genetics may well be the strongest bond between the past, the presentl, and the future. Human beings are animals that think and think that they have a soul. Kubrick knew that too well and he mastered the presentation of these morbid concepts. I wish I could have met Stanley Kubrick. It is needless to say that Eyes Wide Shut is a must see for a Kubrick fan. However, for those unfamiliar with the work of the great master, this may not be the best film to become aquainted with the most influential director of the century, although undeniably Eyes Wide Shut is the best movie out there at this point. Like it or hate it, Eyes Wide Shut will definitely leave the movie theater with you, and if you find it tedious, go and enjoy Wild Wild West. -- 08/09/99

Rowan Isaacs (rowan@tpevents,com,au) wrote:

I found this masterpeice to be very criptic, I have only seen the film once and would like to see it a second time I would appreciate any feed beck in relation to the plot and hidden meanings so that I can full undestand what this amazing director was trying to show it viewers. -- 10/08/99

Rowan Isaacs (rowan@tpevents.com.au) wrote:

paul yoes (vanfan25@hotmail.com) wrote:

great movie which will misunderstood by most reviewers Stanley was a genius and as most genius'. he was never appreciated good work Stanley, we will never meet again. --

KubrickWelles (defscam@aol.com) wrote:

Eyes wide shut is the greatest film i ever seen.I couldn't help but notice a few things about this flick.First the incredible use of backlight and primary colors.Second,Every person that Dr.Bill came in contact with was sexually suggestive to him.The acting was superb, as with most all of Stanley's films supporting actors have extremely key roles. Cruise's performance reminded me of Jack Nicoholson's charm in "the shining".Kidman (who basically didn't have much screen time) was brilliant and deserves the best actress award for the yesr.The music, well the music gave chills down my spine, i didn't know if i was scarred or if i was dreaming, that's why this movie needs multiple viewings! Kubrick's production was as always outstanding, i didn't need to care about the characters, the message of the movie was far greater important than the acting itself. And that message was should we really believe what our eyes are see