Eyes Wide Shut (1999) User Reviews

A mirror audaciously obsessive in its dazzling revelations...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 7 September 1999]

Stanley Kubrick was tempted to do "Eyes Wide Shut" in 1970, but Christianne, his wife, felt that her marriage could be in jeopardy, so she implored him not to do it... But "Eyes Wide Shut" came to be after all, the last temptation of Kubrick...

The film begins revealing the nice figure in high heels of Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman), moving in sliding motion her nice black gown... Alice is invited with her husband Dr. William (Tom Cruise) to a holiday party given by a New York wealthy broker called Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack).

While Alice is dancing half-drunk with an effusive Hungarian (Ski Dumont), she was, at the same time, spying on her husband who was flirting with two models... A ménage à trois is insinuated by the attractive girls, but a sudden interruption comes from Ziegler's private apartment which made the doctor climb upstairs to assist an attractive woman lying unconscious, repressed, overdosed!

The famous mirror love scene, between Alice and her husband, reflected a missing sexual desire between them both... William was kissing his lovely wife on the neck while her glance seemed weary and tired... It seems that the eroticism has vanished from her boring life... Only a little intimate contact is left... Is she truly recognizing a necessity for a change, maybe for a new husband much more nearby...

Looking for a certain sexual vengeance, Alice begins irritating her husband about adultery by testing his immunity, and relating some fantasy she had with a handsome naval officer last summer, she assures William that 'if the handsome office had wanted her,' she would have sacrificed everything, even her marriage and her child for one night stand!

Feeling his word destroyed into fragments, and walking the dangerous streets of New York, William remembered an old friend he met in the party, the piano player Todd Field (Nick Nightingale). He decides to pass by...

There, Nick divulges a secret... A secret place on Long Island... A château where he will be playing piano 'eyes shuttered'... But he continued, to get into the castle, one must have a mask, a disguise and he must 'know' the password...

With shades of Hitchcock's "Vertigo," Kubrick starts to play, at this point, with his characters... He seems escorting them and leading the audience for some purpose, for one definite performance he prepared his whole picture for it... Kubrick did not create a film about sex... He made a film about the conception of sex... He wanted us to explore something inside our mind that we usually prefer not to discover... Through his eyes a visual work appeared, a cinematic technique breathtakingly beautiful, a perfectionism, precise and mystical...

Reducing the dialog to a minimum, and with a distinguished confused music, we were in presence of a strange ceremonial rite, a picturesque ritual...

Based on a psychological drama, written by the Viennese novelist Arthur Schnizler, "Eyes Wide Shut" is a mirror, audaciously obsessive in its dazzling revelations, profound, provocative and passionate, transmitted in a frame of sex, fear and death, that we have to see with wide eyes fully opened...

A deeply thoughtful, multi-layered, meaningful and visually beautiful cinematic work

[ficklingsp · 8/10 · 31 May 2012]

One film which I have watched on multiple occasions is Eyes Wide Shut. This was Stanley Kubrick's final film. It is one of the most challenging, underrated, misunderstood and complex cinematic works I have ever seen. Ever since it's release it's been given variegated reviews. The flawless visuals, deep themes, slow pace and eerie almost dreamlike atmosphere all captivate the viewer.

The premise itself is the story of a doctor named Bill Harford played by Tom Cruise and his wife Alice played by Nicole Kidman. A wealthy and privileged couple who reside in New York with their young daughter Helena. After Alice unveils a mysterious sexual fantasy she had with another man Bill becomes distressed. A thoughtful Bill embarks on a late night sexual odyssey where he counters temptation, lust and infidelity. Before attending an outlandish orgy held by the rich and powerful of an underground cult. There he witnesses the darker side of sex and how dehumanizing and frigid it can be. After being exposed as an outsider Bill's livelihood and family become endangered causing Bill to resolve the aftermath even though he was given terse instructions not to by the cult. Rousing more thought-provocation, confusion and mystery to flow.

In the end the film remains ambiguous and puzzling yet nevertheless fascinating. There are many themes to study such as jealousy, intrigue, fear, sexuality, fantasy, reality and dreams amongst a host of others such as psychology, sociology, human nature, society and so on. It's also an fascinating message on how sex has transformed into a technology e.g. the obsession with money. Many stress it to be an artistic film as well. Personally I don't think it's Kubrick's best film however it's still in there with his best. A symbolic, important and serious work. The title of the film is metaphorically relevant to the context of the film in that our eyes are literally wide shut to the truth. As the ending is quite ambiguous interpretations are left open in that the viewer can decide whether or not it has either an optimistic or pessimistic outcome. I would maturely recommend it

A World of Its Own

[kurosawakira · 8/10 · 21 February 2013]

I remember when Kubrick passed away. I read it in the morning newspaper, and was struck with deep sadness I couldn't explain. Mind you, I was not even 12 years old at the time and had barely seen any of his films.

So I went to see "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) at the cinema. I credit it, along with Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" (1998), as an experience that ignited my interest in film, since they were both films like I had never seen before. Sure, there's that one reason why a young lad might be interested in this, but I was so struck by its atmosphere and narrative flow that I had to read Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle". And how disappointed I was in how unalike they were. The film was in a world of its own that had a sense of time that was its own, a sense of colour that was its own, a sense of light that was its own. Every movement was languid, every word deliberate.

I never really thought about the connection between this and Malick's film until now, but really, they both move in the realm of dreams and memories and projected, subjective realities – between something that did happen (to someone) and something that might have happened. There's ellipsis, ambiguity, metaphor. Both work their magic in visual terms. I'm soaked in that light from the ball even by recalling the images in my mind as I'm writing this.

Fidelio – enter.

Mis-marketed and misunderstood, among Kubrick's best

[WriConsult · 9/10 · 7 June 2002]

***SPOILER ALERT - I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS MOVIE! ***

It's a shame that this film was promoted as a "hot" erotic thriller. Kubrick would not have allowed that marketing campaign to go forward had he been alive. Sure there's a lot of eroticism in this movie, but those who go to it looking for sexual thrills are going to be (and were) sorely disappointed.

The events in this movie are triggered by the protagonist's wife's revelation that she almost slept with another man. This kicks off a range of emotions and prompts him to re-evaluate his sexual relationship with her, subsequently leading to a trip through his sexual SUBconscious. This is the critical point that all too many viewers miss, though it's so overtly surreal I don't see how one could miss it. None of this is real! It's called Eyes Wide SHUT for a reason!

All of our protagonists' "encounters" represent manifestations of his sexual fantasies and fears. His fantasies include group sex, sex with a teenager, sex with a prostitute, sex without strings. His fears include disease, homosexuality (notice the brutal and brief encounter with the gay-bashing gang), and most of all: discovery. Discovery of his hidden fantasies, which might reveal his true nature to the world. Discovery that he is really a pretender, doesn't really belong, and is not worthy after all. This latter is probably universal, and in his case while it has sexual dimensions it is not purely sexual. In the end he realizes that his fantasies are just fantasies, at least some of his fears are legitimate, and that instead of just fantasizing about sex he should actually have sex with his wife. Not rocket science here, but plenty of people need reminding of this from time to time, and it's a well-told story.

I was fortunate enough to first see this movie in theaters overseas, and was spared the atrocity of digital editing to make things less explicit. David Lynch did the same thing more recently in Mulholland Drive, and I hope that this is not the beginning of a trend. Given all of the explicit gore and brutality in movies, the level of sexual explicitness that triggers the censors is simply laughable. Frankly, having seen the un-edited version, I didn't think it was a big deal.

One can't dismiss criticisms that the nudity was all female and many of the women were depicted as sexual objects, but this movie is quite pointedly a trip through a fairly conventional man's sexual unconscious and necessarily told from a male point of view. So none of these things should be a surprise. It would be very interesting to see a comparable exploration of the female sexual subconscious by an accomplished woman director, though I'm not holding my breath that the Hollywood establishment will allow that to happen soon.

Hypnotic and misunderstood

[realalexrice · 10/10 · 8 June 2021]

Initially was at a loss for words with this one. I can't necessarily explain the feelings this film brings out, but I can say they feel real personal and there's just something so off yet so painfully real about (most of) this movie and it is just really undervalued in Kubrick's filmography, I think. Besides being one of my favorite looking movies ever, the midpoint turn is one of the scariest heading down rabbit hole reveals I've really encountered in a film and it just disturbed me for the entire time (you know the point) and after as it continued provocatively building to the disturbing and bizarrely cathartic ending, which haunts me as the final scene in a Kubrick film. It's perfect in it's imperfectness and I get an insane level of both joy and sadness watching this movie.

Compelling, complex observation of fidelities and fantasies

[pooch-8 · 19 July 1999]

With the exception of a late-occurring scene of deadening over-explanation wholly unnecessary to the film on every level (and rather unusual for Kubrick), Eyes Wide Shut is utterly sensational, and represents another gleaming jewel in the master filmmaker's already studded crown. Cruise and Kidman surpass all of their previous work, turning in spectacular performances infused with nuances only hinted at prior to this outing. Their real-life union appears to bring every bit of unique tension Kubrick intended, as the movie wholly depends on the verisimilitude of the central couple's relationship. Kubrick's tone fulfills all the promise of the title, consistently delivering an elevated texture of almost uncanny imagination perpetually hovering between fantasy and reality. The director additionally mines many of his familiar thematic concerns, including deceit, paranoia, and blinding frustration. Eyes Wide Shut is certain to be as closely scrutinized as many of Kubrick's other films (particularly because it is his final work), and its thoughtful and challenging treatment of such lightning-rod topics as marital honesty, sexual jealousy, and the perceived risks of disclosing one's fantasies (even to the single person you trust more than any other) is sure to draw some people in while pushing others away.

meandering cold movie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 25 June 2015]

Upper class New York couple Alice (Nicole Kidman) and Dr. William Harford (Tom Cruise) seems to have it all with their girl. They go to his rich patient Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack)'s party where he ends up treating an overdose. His medical school mate Nick Nightingale gives him a password to a special party. He meets prostitute Domino. Milich and his sexualized daughter rents him the costume. He is confronted at the mansion and is kicked out. He becomes obsessed with getting back into the secret society.

There is no arguing that Stanley Kubrick makes good looking films. Looking back, there is something meta about Kidman and Cruise's crumpling marriage both on and off the screen. There is a fascination with this movie like slipping a small glimpse into their real lives. However I don't like the meandering nature of the plot and the disconnected nature of these characters. I don't care about any of the characters and I don't find their relationship compelling. The numerous naked beautiful women actually becomes numbing especially since most of them are wearing masks. They might as well be mannequins. Other than Leelee Sobieski and Nicole, none of the female characters are that interesting.

Eyes Wide Open

[AlexDeLargeisHere · 10/10 · 2 February 2012]

Stanley Kubrick's final film is perhaps the first of its kind: it is the only film I have watched that exists within the state of death itself. It's no surprise; Stanley Kubrick died 4 days after submitting the final print into Warner Bros., Sydney Pollock died in 2008 and my grandparents, who saw this film at a screening in 1999, are dead. However, these aren't merely the reasons this film evokes a death-like state, this film evokes a death-like state throughout Bill Harford's sexual odyssey. During the Masonic orgy, which is arguably the film's center-piece, women are used and discarded as corpses who are only valued for their material gain. This film is shroud in ultra-violet blue, especially at the end of the film where it accentuates the characters' trembling flesh and vulnerable humanity, and the powerful red which contrasts against this blue reflects one of Kubrick's favorite themes: dominance. Perhaps it's inexplicable that Eyes Wide Shut evokes a man's dying thoughts. Ironically, this film feels more fresh and timeless than many of its contemporaries, only reaffirming the inestimable value of Kubrick's contributions to cinema and a decade of a cinematic drought aptly followed his death. It was fashionable to deride Stanley Kubrick's final film during its theatrical run, regardless of the fact that he considered it his personal favorite. It seems that the audience expected Kubrick to inundate them with gratuitous eroticism as opposed to ideas. Yet, Eyes Wide Shut has outsmarted time and the film industry itself. It was almost incongruously released a week before American Pie and the abysmal Will Smith star vehicle Wild Wild West. It continues to hold a mere 7.2/10 on IMDb in contrast to escapist science-fiction film The Matrix which holds an 8.7/10 rating and is listed in the top 30 films of all time, above Kubrick's more cerebral science-fiction classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. All of this may be due to the fact that Kubrick argued that 'Observancy is a dying art' and Eyes Wide Shut requires an attention to detail and an attention span that transcends the average summer blockbuster; it's easy to get lost in the terrifying labyrinth of Kubrick's musings. Though, unlike other films, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut refutes the transcendent imagery and magic that is featured in the majority of Kubrick's films, even in Eyes Wide Shut itself, and strips humanity down to its fragile human core, figuratively speaking; Kubrick comes to the conclusion that when man is confronted with the cold and harsh reality, he favors comforting self-delusion and blissful ignorance.

Sydney Pollock's Ziegler argues, during his amazing final monologue, that the Masonic orgies are practiced by society's elite which excludes Bill. Bill spends the duration of the film's first half attempting to engage in infidelity after his wife reveals that she was willing to choose one night with a naval officer over their future. Naturally, this enrages Bill and he spends the night attempting to fulfill his personal need to subjugate his feelings of impotence, sexual and otherwise. Even in the very beginning, when Bill walks with two models, his short stature implicitly denotes his lack of power. Bill is convinced that he has been subjected to a life of domesticity and his wife is responsible; he vows to reaffirm his masculinity. Kubrick paints long shots of New York at midnight which is designed to inspire the viewer with dread. Almost every single beautiful shot capturing the very essence of soft, warm colors in the beginning soon descends into the dark and strong colors that reflect the very dream-state many describe when they watch this film. Yet, to me, it evokes a foreboding death-like state which suggests impending doom.

Bill's quest for reaffirmation of his masculinity only renders him emasculated when he enters a Masonic orgy and is rendered socially powerless by a group of the masked elite. Bill's journey neither leads him towards enlightenment nor satisfaction but humiliation and understanding that he has been domesticated by the higher classes. Ironically, his quest for sexual empowerment only led him to the understanding of social domesticity; Bill is not as influential or elite as he had initially anticipated. Not unlike the elite's perception of women; they use the high-class prostitutes as objects valued for their material value which reflects their perception of the masses that are responsible for their success. As in the beginning, when Ziegler needs Bill to revive a dying woman who almost overdoses on a combination of cocaine and heroin, Ziegler values Bill for his medical expertise which prevented trouble with the law rather than his personality. Kubrick's film argues that we live in ignorance of others perceptions of us and this is the ultimate existential fear of Harford; the elite have seen Harford unmasked, vulnerable and exposed. Pollock says 'If you knew who was there, you wouldn't sleep so well.' Kubrick has finally exposed man for who he really is; vulnerable and ignorant of the mysterious forces which govern him. The final and most playfully complex of cinema's closing lines concludes that Bill and Alice Harford have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. They refuse to acknowledge their social impotence and would prefer for their eyes to remain wide shut, ignorant to the mysterious forces that govern them. On a more optimistic note, however, perhaps Bill's odyssey only made him aware of his vulnerability, and Kubrick evokes this through the dark imagery that recreates the sense of subjective paranoia that Bill is experiencing. Bill realizes what ultimately matters: love and family, as opposed to the power which he initially craved but only realized he was at the mercy of others' application of such social power. I'm open to many interpretations of this film, because Kubrick wanted the audience's eyes to remain wide open soon after they finished experiencing this masterpiece.

What did Kubrick want us to open our eyes to?

[dustinkdye · 10/10 · 19 August 2020]

Eyes Wide Shut is a movie like Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz (which is subtly referenced in the film) in that the more times you view it, the more you get out of it. (I imagine at some point you would wring out all the meaning, but that would take scores of viewings.) One infamous scene is so over-the-top it is easy to miss all the subtle references in the film, which necessitates multiple viewings. Fair warning--the more times you watch it, the more you go down the rabbit hole Kubrick digs (a reference to Alice in Wonderland, also evoked in Eyes Wide Shut).

Eyes Wide Shut was inspired by an Austrian novella called "Traumnovelle." The film is indeed dreamlike. Kubrick recreated Greenwich Village on a sound stage in London, which, like a dream, is slightly off from the real thing and contains no superfluous elements. This evokes the perfect atmosphere for the movie as we accompany Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) on his all-night, humiliating, surreal odyssey.

To me, the title of the movie, Eyes Wide Shut, implies willful naivete, particularly Dr. Bill's, and by extension the viewers', which seems to be (one of) the theme(s) Kubrick intends to highlight. Even the movie's poster seems to imply this: a mirror image of Nicole Kidman's character (Alice, as in Through the Looking Glass), looking right through the mirror in what appears to be an Illuminati image, while Dr. Bill has his eyes closed. In fact, all the shots of Alice looking in the mirror started to creep me out on subsequent viewings.

The movie then indulges in conspiracy-theory dog whistles to anyone whose eyes aren't wide shut. The Harfords are a WASPy family living in a luxurious apartment in Central Part West, which may be out of reach for a doctor (basically, a highly paid member of the working class) whose wife doesn't work. Furthermore, Dr. Bill Harford (whose name sounds like "Dollar Bill Harrison Ford") throws around money like it's no object. Which raises the question of how he really makes his money--apparently by making house calls to the ridiculously wealthy who can afford to avoid hospital waiting rooms. Dr. Bill seems to aspire to rub shoulders with these people, but he is spectacularly naive to the realities of the world he is tangentially involved in and his actual role in it. It seems to me the reason he was invited to the Victor's (as in an economic "victor's") luxurious party at the beginning is because it is a house-call in disguise in case of something like the OD that indeed occurs at one point. I determined this by reading between the lines when the two models hit on him, and he seems oblivious to their allusions of taking him "to where the rainbow ends" (more on that below) and when he is taken away at Victor's call, they exchange looks that seem to say they had mistaken him for one of the elites, not a working-class schlub.

FULL-ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES BELOW.

If Dr. Bill's eyes are wide shut, then Alice's are partly open. This is implied in the very first dialogue exchange in the movie, when Alice knows exactly where Dr. Bill had left his wallet, while he had forgotten, and he doesn't remember the name of the babysitter, which was mentioned like 30 seconds earlier. This comes to the fore when he simply can't imagine Alice being unfaithful to him because women don't think like men, and she falls to the floor laughing and divulges a depressing sexual fantasy. Alice looks in the mirror a lot, most memorably when she stares in the mirror as Dr. Bill begins kissing her. Is Kubrick implying Alice is a former sex slave who is going "through the looking glass"--the mental space sex slaves go to mentally block their abuse? Is that why Alice is constantly grooming their daughter, Helena? Is she subconsciously grooming her daughter for a similar fate? Is that why in the final scene, when Alice and Dr. Bill are wrapped up in their conversation at the toy store, Helena can be seen running away in the direction of two men in the background, who had also been in the background at Victor's party? Among the strange toys at said toy store are stuffed tigers and a game called "Magic Circle"--resembling the imagery at the secret society's ritual/party Dr. Bill crashed and apparently a prop created for the movie. The stuffed tigers are identical to one on Domino's bed, a streetwalker Dr. Bill meets in Greenwich Village. Is Kubrick implying Domino is a sex slave, having undergone "Beta Kitten" programming, and the juxtaposition of the same toy with Helena in a toy store implying the girl's fate as well as the creepy conditioning the elites are subjecting the masses to?

Then there are the references to "rainbows," as in "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," another reference to sex slave conditioning, similar to "through the looking glass." The two models at Victor's party offer to take Dr. Bill "to where the rainbow ends"--where they go mentally when they're having sex. Then there is the costume shop "Rainbow" where Dr. Bill obtains the cloak for the secret society's party and where the proprietor's daughter prostitutes herself. The girl runs from her enraged father, gets behind Dr. Bill for protection, then whispers something inaudible into his ear. The version of the movie I own has Japanese subtitles that translate what she said: She tells him which cloak to choose. Does she infer where he is going with that cloak and does she have knowledge of what goes on there? That would seem to connect her with the rainbow image in the store's name.

Finally, I question how accurate Kubrick's depiction of the elite's secret society is. It seems to be a hodgepodge of hellfire club, Bohemian Grove, Illuminati/Freemason, O.T.O. imagery. Are there elite cadres involved in these types of ritual debauchery? I'd guess Kubrick was close enough to these people he probably saw a lot and knew enough to guess at the rest (such as the sort of parties the Rothschilds threw--the exterior of the house of the party was one of the Rothschilds' residences). There are disturbing parallels with Eyes Wide Shut in the Jeffrey Epstein case and his "suicide." I'm guessing it is true in broad strokes. I think Kubrick was telling us society's elites engage in depravities that would frighten and disgust the masses if we knew about them, and therefore we shouldn't be so naive to grant the economic victors any moral authority.

I know this makes me a heretic, but this film should have had at least half an hour trimmed.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 10 August 2010]

It's amazing that a film this long and drawn out would actually leave so much unsaid and unclear. What's also amazing is that although I am a huge cinemaniac, I am willing to dare to say that the god of cinema snobs, Stanley Kubrick, made a film that was far from perfect. The bottom line is that although the plot was very interesting, the film was simply too low energy, too long and too over-stylized.

I must stop to make a horrible confession. Despite having now done over 9000 reviews for IMDb, I have very, very mixed feelings about Kubrick's films and the following are my insane opinions about many of his more famous films. Some are masterpieces--such as "Dr. Strangelove", "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing". Others, exceptional but flawed--"Spartacus" went on too long and should have ended at the 'I am Spartacus' scene (then it would have been perfect). Others, way, way, way overrated--"2001" is is definitely so. And others are so long and dull it boggles the mind--"Barry Lyndon" made we want to scream it moved so slowly.

As for "Eyes Wide Shut", it is far from Kubrick's best work and it is painfully slow...but it does merit watching. The basic story idea is, at times, intriguing. There is a lot to like. But, the film shows a certain painfully obsessive quality--a need to show EVERYTHING--every emotion, every grimace...almost every breath! Considering that Mr. Kubrick was well-known for his OCD-like qualities (often shooting scenes again and again and again as well as going months or years past deadlines), this isn't too surprising. Plus, by the time he made the film he was a bit of a film guru--and adored so much that no one would dare question why this movie clocks in at almost 168 minutes--whereas another director might complete the film in less than 120.

There is also one thing that boggled my mind about the movie. Although the film should have received an NC-17 rating (again, I assume this was withheld because it was a Kubrick film), even with gobs of full-frontal nudity, it managed to make sex boring! The way some of the sex scenes were so over-choreographed (especially at the party at the mansion where Cruise was the interloper) made me wish that despite the gorgeous women that they'd just cut much of it. As a result, while it's not a film I'd rush to show a teenager, it's almost sanitary enough that you could.

As far as the performances go, the best in the film was by Sidney Pollack. Unlike most everyone else in the film, he actually had some energy--like he was the only one awake among a half-asleep cast. I sure wanted to see more acting like this--and perhaps, in a way, Pollack was directing himself a bit.

So far, it really sounds like I disliked the film, though this isn't exactly true--I mostly just disliked the way it was directed (ahhh....I must be a heretic). As for the extremely sexy story, some of it was great. I liked how the film explored what might happen if couples are too open about their sexual fantasies and the irreparable harm it can cause. I liked the idea of a secret society made up of the rich and powerful. I liked the way that you never knew exactly whether or not Cruise might die. But, I also think I've seen much of this done better in John Frankenheimer's "Seconds". I know that Frankenheimer is a very, very well-respected director but know few would say he was better than Kubrick--but in this particular case I think he did a better job mostly because his film was more direct, less self-indulgent and lacked the occasionally annoying soundtrack. The bottom line is that I liked the film but far from loved it. And, for the most part, that was the reaction to the film when it debuted. Aside from the Kubrick worshipers, most seem to feel it was one of his lesser films.

Worth seeing but think three or four times about having your kids watch it!

It's The Wizard of Oz for adults.

[straker2 · 10/10 · 24 July 2011]

Remember the Wizard of Oz? Dorothy travels to somewhere over the rainbow, follows the yellow brick road and meets the Wizard. He's a fearsome figure with a mask...but behind the mask is a fragile little man who is hiding behind his fake persona.

Now...let's apply that idea to marriage. We all wear masks, don't we? We put on a persona and we hide the truth. The wife asks if you've ever been attracted to other women and you deny it. You pretend not to notice anyone else, to spare her feelings.

So Stanley Kubrick wants to look at this idea of honesty in marriage and relationships. People naked, having sex, yet wearing masks to hide their faces, their true identities, their thoughts. What a clever image! It's a complete mirror image opposite of what we see in the world, people with bodies covered and faces exposed. Is he saying we are at our least honest when we have sex?

When Alice Harford opens up to her husband, when she "unmasks" and reveals her fantasies about another man, it stuns Dr. Bill Harford to the very core. Her honesty is too much for him. Kubrick let's us know we're in an adult Wizard of Oz. Two girls tell Bill they are taking him to "where the rainbow ends". Rainbow colored Christmas tree lights are in almost every shot and Bill gets a mask from "Rainbow costumes". And yellow...the color of that brick road, is all about. A yellow cab takes Bill on his journey to the orgy of masked, yet otherwise naked, bodies.

When Bill finally goes home, he finds his mask on his wife's pillow. It seems Alice has got his number. He too "unmasks" and confesses. Kubrick seems to be suggesting that temptation is dangerous and that the wisest and safest thing a man can do is go home to his wife and get honest with her. Take off the mask, have the courage to expose the fragile man behind the false persona.

The other nice thing is the final moment where Alice tells Bill they need to have sex as soon as possible. Sex is an act and perhaps Kubrick is also suggesting people should do it rather than talk about it if they want a happy marriage.

As a metaphor of human psychology, Eyes Wide Shut seems to be a film about the value of marriage and family life, and perhaps a film which encourages honestly between men and women, too. As a piece of film making, it's typically outstanding work for the meticulous Mr.Kubrick. It's also a very positive and optimistic film, suggesting that love, marriage and family can resist temptation and the dangers that temptation might bring. All in all, a superb motion picture from a true master of the movies.

A final word about Cruise and Kidman. Both worked long and hard, more than a year of shooting, with Stanley Kubrick and their efforts are deserving of appreciation. They both do some of their finest ever work.

Way too long, but it's a fitting swansong for Kubrick

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 10 July 2016]

Kubrick's final film turns out to be both disappointing and spellbinding, but thankfully the spellbinding part far outweighs the disappointing bit. Despite the massive hype, many critics were unkind to this film, labelling it wishy-washy and insubstantial. While I agree that it is definitely flawed, there are some excellent scenes in the film which rival those of any creepy horror film.

While the film starts off poorly, it does get better, let me assure you. Kubrick almost deliberately seems to be trying to push the viewer away, challenging him by drawing out unimportant scenes and pushing them into our faces. I do agree that the film is far, far too long, the two hour and a half length is just over the top, and I'm sure that it could have been cut down half an hour to a greater effect. Also, the widely publicised 'erotic' content is not actually there; although the film is based around sex, there is very little actual sex on show, and Cruise doesn't even sleep with anybody, apart from his wife. There is lots of nudity on full view, but no more than you'd see on TV, so it's not really very shocking.

The film has an interesting cast, with Tom Cruise being an agreeable focus point from the film; it's not hard to imagine that he can be irresistible to every person he meets, male or female. Nicole Kidman actually appears only at the beginning and the end of the film to provide some antagonistic argument, and also to shed her clothes (no surprise there). The rest of the cast all put in believable, immaculate performances, but the real star here is Stanley Kubrick. Having made only a handful of films in his career, this epic was to be his swansong, and the magic that made 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and THE SHINING such good films is still here, you just have to dig to see it.

The best moments in the film are when Cruise visits the orgy. The sight of the robed, masked figures is genuinely spooky and unsettling, especially when they discover Cruise to be an outsider and begin to threaten him. These scenes are pure horror and very effective, as is another moment where Cruise is followed down the street by a faceless man. In fact, I liked the whole of Cruise's journey through the night and his discovery of the consequences the next day, just not the Cruise/Kidman bits which surrounded it. The film is bolstered by an eerily effective soundtrack, one piece of music being played on piano sticking in the mind. While it is overused, it's still quite chilling. EYES WIDE SHUT may be no masterpiece and it may take some sitting through, but there are some great bits to enjoy and altogether it serves as a fitting swansong to Kubrick. Recommended.

Limp story-telling wrapped up as semi-intellectual nonsense

[Rogue-4 · 1/10 · 20 September 1999]

And so the last chapter of the Kubrick enigma is written. Trouble is, the real enigma is why anyone thought there was one to start with.

There is a danger that Eyes Wide Shut will become, as Kubrick's last movie and the one he died making, some sort of cinematic Holy Grail, immune to all criticism. But it deserves to be said: this is a bad film. Story is glossed over with ambiguity and characterisation eliminated for, well, nothing in particular.

The primary problem is that it is a film lacking in any direction whatsoever - by the mid-way point it could have turned into an excellent thriller, or gone in another direction and been an equally compelling look at the two main character's relationship with each other. Indeed, it spent two hours building up both of these plots, but failed to deliver on either. Instead, it wandered off for the last hour in no particular direction and consistently failed to expand any of its ideas into anything resembling a plot-line, ending with a insultingly limp coda where everything was forgotten, forgiven and plastered over. It is as if halfway through, Kubrick changed his mind about what the film was about and then changed it back again for the last half hour, leaving neither element explored to any great degree.

Like most of Kubrick's films, the characters are bland, narrow and un-engaging; Tom Cruise's character bumbles from one unrelated event to the next, purely on the motivation that he feels the need to cheat on his marriage because he misjudged his wife's ability to fantasise. There is no structure to his movements through the film. It's all rather aimless. It's all rather pointless. His breakdown at the end is all the more ridiculous because he didn't actually do anything except spend a hideous amount of money not doing it. If this is an accurate analysis of relationships in the nineties, heaven help us all.

The one sub-plot that actually promises to engage any interest - a piano player friend has a job at a party that Cruise contrives to sneak into - is presented in a manner worthy of Hitchcock. The resulting party is suitably weird and has a darkly threatening conclusion. Another twenty minutes are spent turning the screws up a notch or two further. You reach a point where you are genuinely on the edge of your seat and then the whole thing fizzles out, to be left with the feeling that surely that can't be all there is to it? Maybe you have to tune in again next week for the second part...

What we are left with is an hour in the middle of the film that was completely unnecessary to the relationship of the two main protagonists, which seems to have been the main point of the film. All it serves is to inject a little weirdness into what would otherwise have been a rather banal story about the sexual jealousies of two spoiled middle-class New Yorkers. But even this isn't taken anywhere really interesting. Instead of seeing the characters under a microscope, you feel as if you watching them from the wrong end of a pair of binoculars. Any interest comes from your own desperate attempts to bring the various plot points together in some sort of cohesion.

Most frustratingly, the film is littered with well-rounded, interesting characters and ideas and, like all Kubrick films, is beautifully shot. But this simply isn't enough to make it a compelling piece of cinema. Like 2001, A Clockwork Orange and the second half of Full Metal Jacket, there is no emotional attachment to the subject - everything is presented rather coldly and clinically; even the griminess of the hooker's apartment doesn't feel that grimy. It may as well have been a documentary on fungal nail infection. The wonderful and intriguing characters - the Hungarian playboy, the neurotic and repressed daughter of one of Cruise's patients - are discarded after a single scene each. They are not taken any further. It's all a bit of a cheat, really.

Like Peter Selllars in Dr Strangelove, Jack Nicholson in The Shining, or Vincent D'Onforio in Full Metal Jacket, this film needed an actor with enough personal charisma and confidence in himself to still shine through after Kubrick's relentless directorial hammering. Instead, the entire cast go through the motions like clockwork, like someone who has said the same word over and over so many times that it no longer has any relation to its meaning. Two performances leave an impression: Alan Cummings, who has played his role so often he can slip into it effortlessly; the other is from Rade Serbedzija, who hams it up wonderfully. The rest, most disappointingly Sidney Pollack, simply glide through the film, leaving no trace of their passing.

It is human nature to try to make sense of something so pointless - let's face it, you've paid your money and you want to know what you've spent it on. The danger is that this excruciatingly blank canvas will become painted over with a lot of semi-intellectual twaddle, as self-appointed interpreters of the film preach to the countless poor souls who sat for two hours wondering when the film was going to start and the third hour in the sinking realisation that it was almost over. To say that you "get what you put in", or that "the pointlessness *is* the point" is a pathetic apology for a film with no idea what it wants to be.

An impressive film with a bad marketing campaign

[niteman · 9/10 · 17 July 1999]

Eyes Wide Shut is ill-suited for the summer movie corridor. It has no explosions, no running, shouting, or a single gunshot. What it has are long scenes in which characters talk to one another. Slowly and carefully. The problem is that the film is marketed as having white-hot sex scenes and plenty of gratuitous nudity, while it has neither. There is plenty of naked flesh, don't get me wrong, but in exactly the opposite way that the ads make it appear. This is not a movie about being sexy and naked -- it's a movie about how flesh is just another part of being human, so what is all the fuss about? The marketing campaign is misleading, and led to disappointment in the audience that I saw the movie with, who were just looking for some skin.

The tension in the plot and the issues that the film discusses aren't telegraphed to the audience, they're hinted at in the dialog. There is no neat resolution at the end, life simply goes on. You may watch the whole film and think "that wasn't about anything!" Then think about what you've seen and realize it has a great deal to say.

The film is a meditation on sexuality and how it relates to marriage, death, and money. It's a fascinating commentary on modern life, and a rare movie that dares to examine sex as impassionately as any other issue.

The directing and cinematography alone would be worth the price of admission without the social commentary. The sets are an integral part of the movie; they breathe and glow and live. Kubrick was a master director, and he uses long shots and dissolves to great effect. Cruise and Kidman are at their best, and the supporting cast is also strong. It's Kubrick's magic work with the camera that holds the film together.

All in all, definitely worth seeing for the un-uptight. It's possible to watch this film and actually think about it for hours afterward. That's something you won't get with the Wild, Wild West.

A fitting completion to Kubrick's study of humanity

[Skywise-4 · 10/10 · 17 July 1999]

I managed to swallow my expectations before the film, setting myself to judge it on its own without judging it as a Kubrick film. No need, no need! This film IS a Kubrick film, without any doubt, and as all Kubrick films are it was absolutely stunning. Absolutely. Visually it is brilliant, though I should warn that this isn't quite as visual a film as most other Kubrick works. A lot of the film focuses on the characters, on human interaction, something rather new to this director. Of course, all the Kubrick trademarks are there, cold analytical gazes, sharp introspection. Tom Cruise seems like Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining' and even Malcolm MacDowell in 'A Clockwork Orange' at times, a rather striking fact considering that this is Tom Cruise. The performances were excellent all around, even from places not expected. Again, this is typical for Kubrick. He wasn't much of a people director, but he still knew how to direct people.

Almost every moment of this film was flawless, perfect and pristine. The dialog is predictable, but in some solemn and holy fateful sort of way, as though the words and the moments are matched so essentially that nothing else could possibly fit. Beyond that the sounds and images all fit together beautifully, creating an almost unblemished whole. The only part that didn't seem right was the sequence that had been digitally altered. While the alterations were not nearly so obtrusive as I had feared (not knowing about them one probably wouldn't notice them) they do grow a bit noticeable for redundancy (you see a lot more backs than you'd expect, and always in the same places). Unfortunately these came right in the middle of one of the most visually amazing pieces of the film (one of the most amazing pieces of cinema as a whole, in my opinion), a very unwelcome distraction.

Is this movie about sex? Yes, it is, but more importantly it is about people. The sex part is simply a product thereof. This is one of the most disturbingly honest portraits of human behavior and motivations ever made. The most honest I've ever seen, at least. To be put simply: It is about sex because people are about sex.

I'm still trying to sort through this movie. It's been a good twelve hours since I saw it, and I can still feel it, hard and definite, rotating in my stomach. The film itself seems mostly void of opinion (not entirely, but mostly), serving more as a general statement and commentary than any specific moral warning, but the questions it inspires are very strong indeed. The film, being objective, provides no answers, no justification for humanity. There is no redemption, either, none whatsoever. The film's final word sums it (it being the film and humanity) up pretty well, for better or for worse. I guess that depends on you.

A common thread in Kubrick's films since 2001 has been the contemplation and examination of human intentions, the essence of human behavior. Motivations. He's shown us violence and madness and everything else, all tracking the path back to the dawn of man. I think he finally figured it out with this film, however anticlimactic the discovery might have been. At least he did finally figure it out. That's something.

I am one of many. I never had the privilege to know Stanley Kubrick. I don't even know that privilege is the right word. I do know his films, though, and while I am in no position to say that I will miss him as a person, I can say, without doubt or hesitation, that I will miss him as a filmmaker.

The Final Masterpiece From The Greatest Filmmaker Of All Time

[CinemaClown · 22 November 2015]

From the director behind influential masterpieces like The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining & Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut marks the final entry in the decades-spanning, unprecedented & extraordinary filmmaking career of Stanley Kubrick. And just like all of his reappraised works, is a classic that unveils more of its intricate layers on multiple viewings.

Set in New York City, Eyes Wide Shut tells the story of Dr. William "Bill" Harford whose life spirals out of control when his wife tells him about an erotic fantasy she had about another man which shatters his faith in her. Unable to get the image of his wife & the other man out of his head, he embarks on a night-long adventure during which he comes extremely close to cheating on his wife & also infiltrates a quasi-religious sexual ritual at a country mansion after learning about it from a friend.

Co-written, produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut is a film about sexual desires that's jam-packed with symbolism & metaphorical elements. The entire film exhibits a sexually charged atmosphere and every single character inhabiting it has nothing but sex on his or her mind. Kubrick's direction makes efficient use of all his trademarks and just like before, he manages to push forward the existing boundaries of the medium while adding a few innovative tricks into the filmmaking manual in the process.

The screenplay smears the plot with multitudes of themes & insinuations, the story unfolds in a slow, methodical manner, the leading characters have an in-depth complexity which is wonderfully illustrated by the master storyteller, each sequence is meticulously detailed & technically refined, and it has a lot to say about sex, infidelity, physical relations, desires & fantasies. However, dialogue isn't one of its strengths for every time anyone says anything, the other character repeats the same as a question which becomes annoying after a while.

The technical aspects always score very high marks in Kubrick films and Eyes Wide Shut is no exception. The set pieces are gorgeously rendered, extensively detailed & beautifully lit. Cinematography encapsulates the entire picture with a bizarre, dream-like ambiance which goes on to further amplify the overall experience while also intensifying its erotic attributes. The use of colours is noteworthy while lighting here is a work of perfection. Its 159 minutes of runtime & deliberately slow pace may feel like a challenging ordeal but it never becomes an issue once the drama sets in.

The incorporation of classical songs to compliment the unfolding drama continues in Eyes Wide Shut and all the musical arrangements are wisely chosen & carefully infused into the storyline. Coming to the performances, the cast comprises of Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Marie Richardson & Todd Field. Even though both Cruise & Kidman put in commendable effort into their respective roles of Mr. & Mrs. Harford, it's actually their on- spot chemistry that makes them click so well, and while there are no definite stand-outs, the contribution by its entire cast only works in the film's favour.

On an overall scale, Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut may not be as pathbreaking as most of his masterpieces but it's nonetheless a deeply fascinating meditation on sexual relations and despite its cynical tone, manages to be an erotic, enthralling & engaging thriller. While the plot is heavy & explicit in sexual content, approaching it as a sex-romp cinema won't do enough justice for Kubrick digs much deeper into the primordial aspects of human nature to put up an exquisite looking tale that's aesthetic, artistic & unlike anything before or since. It may not be Kubrick's greatest, but it's still a genre masterpiece. Thoroughly recommended. Multiple viewings advised.

The dream is a lie; the nightmare is the truth.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 7/10 · 22 December 2022]

It's somewhat ironic that the narrative takes place over the course of about three days because the production literally holds the world record for having the longest number of shoot days with a whopping 400. Most movies are the result of a compromise between the filmmakers' intentions and what they were able to achieve given the time and money available to them, but 'Eyes Wide Shut (1999)' seems to be an exercise in sheer perfectionism. Having said that, if director Stanley Kubrick had survived to see its release, I'm almost certain he would have still found something to pick out as being not exactly what he wanted it to be. We are all our own worst critics, after all. Still, the result is a film that nobody can claim isn't at least incredibly close to its director's vision, despite his untimely death shortly after the final edit was delivered to the studio. Kubrick was so meticulous - a descriptor practically synonymous with his work - that he even went so far as to hire a team to recreate the streets of New York on a sound stage in London using exact measurements gathered by members of the production crew who didn't share his fear of flying. Even after every aspect of the production design, costuming, blocking, dialogue and performance had been decided, the cast and crew were plagued by an exhausting amount of takes; Vinessa Shaw was originally contracted for two weeks for her single scene, but this ballooned to two months thanks to the repetition demanded by the director. Kubrick also pushed his actors so far that Tom Cruise developed an ulcer and Nicole Kidman had an as-yet-undiscovered benign cyst exacerbated by the six-day-long shooting of a sex scene that only resulted in around a minute of actually used footage. The married couple were also forced to undergo therapy alongside their director, which both parties have agreed never to elaborate on, and to have the seeds of suspicion sewn into their real relationship by an atmosphere of secrecy on set.

The obvious question is: was it worth it? Almost everyone who has been interviewed about the picture, and working with Kubrick in general, seems more than happy to have undergone the impossibly tiring yet ostensibly rewarding process. However, there are reports of genuine suffering caused by this method (Shelley Duvall's treatment of the set of 'The Shining (1980)' comes to mind). Plus, art is arguably defined by the restrictions encountered while creating it; putting down the brush for the last time and declaring your piece complete is the only thing that transforms art-in-progress into actual art. In either case, perhaps the question itself is irrelevant - or, at the very least, so subjective that any answer to it would be equally as personal as it is pointless.

Kubrick's final feature is a bit of an odd one, a slow-paced micro-odyssey that sees Tom Cruise wander around New York while contemplating his marriage and the role that non-monogamy could play in it. Though almost every aspect of the picture circles back to sex in one way or another, its most potent underlying themes are mystery and class. Practically everything about the piece is an enigma in its own right, from its floaty and almost ethereal aesthetic to its elusive and almost dream-like plot. The protagonist is sent spiralling into an existential crisis when he comes to realise he doesn't understand his wife, nor the relationship between them, as well as he thought he did, a crisis which externalises itself in the form of a pensive journey of discovery. Yet, the further down the rabbit hole the hero goes, the less things make sense; definitive answers are nowhere to be found. The class system, and the various characters' place within it, is explored and challenged throughout the piece. It initially seems as though the wealthy and successful lead is on the top rung of capitalistic society, able to casually flash his cash in almost every scenario and get things that everyone else simply wouldn't have access to. Soon, though, it becomes clear that he's actually on the bottom rung of an entirely different ladder, one which leads to a place so potent and powerful that nobody outside of it really knows of its existence and those who occupy it can do unimaginable things with no fear of repercussion. Both of the main themes collide - and, arguably, come into focus - during the film's most infamous scene. I won't spoil its events just in case you've somehow managed to avoid knowledge of them, but I will say that this eerie and uncomfortable sequence represents the point at which the class system becomes a mystery and the other mysteries become subject to the class system. It's a disturbing moment because it represents an intangible horror, a sort of societal wound that you may not be aware of until you notice yourself picking at the scab. Once you've heard of it, you won't rest until you've seen it; once you've seen it, you won't ever rest again. It also, in a way, represents the vast unknowable nature of the universe and is a microcosm for the feature at large.

The more you think about the movie, the scarier it gets. In the moment, though, it plays out as a compelling and unconventional drama that constantly threatens to become something else. It's the sort of thing that makes you wonder why certain aspects of its plot were included in the first place, then realise that everything is as it was always meant to be. There are many layers to it and it's a very interesting affair overall, even if it is a little slow in general and takes a while to root itself in your brain. It's an undeniably well-made effort in pretty much every aspect, from the calculated camerawork to the believable performances (though Cruise seriously struggles to look as though he isn't resisting the urge to violently lash out at any given moment). It perhaps isn't for every one, but it's an entertaining and effective alternate Christmas movie that fans of anyone involved should see.

Kubrick's Gift to us all. "I have seen one or two things in my life but never, never anything like this."

[JFHunt · 10/10 · 25 September 2005]

I'm sitting here trying to come up with a clever comment about this movie to make you want to see it. When in reality it doesn't matter what I say. As Stallone would say "I'm at least half a bum." The truth to it is, it kind of makes me sad that I'll probably never see another movie that affects so much. Never experience a film that 6 years after it's release, I still can not forget.

To say the most, it's a powerful film. The directing is world class. The camera work is haunting and the soundtrack gives me chills. It's Cruise at his finest. He is so convincing that one might actually believe that this guy is Doctor Bill Harford and this really did happen to him. And that my friends is the definition of acting. The seriousness of the situation fades away with a stern smile as the plot thickens.

To say the least it is one of those movies you could watch over and over again. To be honest with you, I didn't buy it the first time I saw it. I thought it was good, but not great. Then one day I was bored, so I decided to see it again. And that's when it happened. Kubrick came alive. I became infected by his genius and captivated by Cruise's portrayal. His realization and his detail.

It's hard to pick my favorite scene in the movie. I couldn't pretend if I tried. I particularly love the opening party scene. That leads to a "Baby did a bad bad thing". Cruise being assaulted on the street being so eloquently called a fag. The prostitute. From the piano bar to the costume shop. And finally, the unionized orgy party, that I find hard to believe doesn't really exist. Maybe only guys like Kubrick or Cruise will ever really know if they do or not.

Many people might disagree with me when I say Eyes Wide Shut is one of the greatest films. But how come I think it is every time I watch it? To me, it's more than a beautiful work of art. More than a visceral painted picture or a haunting melody. It's a masterpiece that should be treasured.

Good film, flawed script

[cascara · 6/10 · 9 October 2002]

This is a perfect example of a great director who was not a writer, but whose ego was not capable of recognizing this fact; thus the interminable rewrites that exasperated the cast. This is a beautifully photographed and acted motion picture in service of a deeply flawed story. A good (not even great) screenwriter could have turned what is merely an interesting work by a great director into a film that truly showcased Kubrick's gifts and was worthy of being his final work. It's a pity.

Remarkable finale to a long, glorious career

[Jaime N. Christley · 9/10 · 16 July 1999]

The thing a lot of folks haven't liked about Stanley Kubrick's films is the fact that he always seemed to think the audience needed some points driven home a little harder than others. Very little is left for debate; most everything is spelled out, pressed hard, and dwelled upon. His critics have compared the long waits between his films to the long periods of waiting that occur while watching his films.

Personally, I like the long, slow scenes in his films. When they're filled with something: music, movement, thought, memory of a previous scene, dread, or any other emotion, they can never really be said to be empty. I like them because, with Kubrick, I can be sure that they're absolutely essential to his ultimate vision. He could have put out a six-hour documentary on tissue manufacturing; at least I'll know that not one minute of screen time is wasted.

"Eyes Wide Shut" isn't as vacuous as, say, "Barry Lyndon" or "The Shining." Compared to those two, this one scoots along like a person trying to get to his car in the rain. It'll try a lot of folks' patience, I'm sure -- even his most loyal fans will be bothered by the incessant piano "bell tolls" in the soundtrack of some scenes, or the constant reminders (in imaginary flashbacks) that Cruise's character is bothered by his wife's near-infidelity. I know I was.

Despite that, it's an apt final film for the long, glorious career of a man who has done more for the cinema, with less movies, than can ever be catalogued. To try and cite influences for this particular work is futile. Though one might draw parallels to Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man!" or Martin Scorsese's "After Hours," "Eyes Wide Shut" is no less than a complete work from the cold heart and brilliant mind of Stanley Kubrick alone. It's also a furiously ingenious piece of filmmaking, one that works less on the emotions than on the senses and on the mind. Unlike most of Kubrick's earlier work, however, it does have an emotional subtext, which is used to devastating effect.

Cruise, by the way, does an outstanding job, not as a trained, camera-conscious film actor, but as a mature, seasoned performer. Here he uses his "Top Gun"/"Jerry Maguire" suavity to malicious effect; like Ryan O'Neal's Barry Lyndon before him, he's an egotistical cad. Unlike Lyndon, he gains our sympathy -- that's key to keeping us from disowning his character and thus negating the entire film.

Kidman is given less screen time, but it matters little. She's mostly seen in the beginning, and she has brief (but crucial) scenes throughout, and a masterful one at the end. It is safe to say that this is her best performance to date, and those of us who have been ignoring her treasured abilities up until now (the Academy, critics, myself) will be astounded to see how far she's come since "Dead Calm." Her high points: the argument with her husband that ends by setting the film's plot in motion perfectly captures the way women lure men into arguments when the cause for one is nonexistent (and on Cruise's part, how men can't think fast enough to do anything about it), and her dream confession scene, in which she wakes laughing but becomes tearful during recollection.

On a technical level, "Eyes Wide Shut" displays Kubrick's trademark perfectionism. Recreating Vietnam in rural England for "Full Metal Jacket" must have been nearly impossible, but the unrelenting accuracy in recreating uptown and downtown New York City is absolutely stunning. Right down to the diners and the newspaper stands; I shake my head in awe when I remind myself that Kubrick (a native Brooklynite) hasn't been to NYC in decades. The lighting and photography is impeccable, also, as it is in every one of his films.

This is the sort of film one sees more than once. Once is good to cleanse the palate, to clear out all the residual toxins left from other recent films. See it again, perhaps a third time, and get to appreciate the graceful, nearly unblemished finale of a man who took the art of cinema seriously. It's a sobering experience.

Dramatic retreat

[vohrasahil-28199 · 6/10 · 1 April 2020]

I really liked the dramatization of the screen play , whole movies looks like a stage performance and piano music in background was literally giving me more curiosity. Tom Cruise acting was great and he was too much into the character but I end up finding Nicole Kidman doing some over acting as she crossed that think line of dramatization and realism . Movie ending was not very satisfactory as I was expecting more about the mystery party night but Nicole Kidman last dialogue have stolen the show .

A haunting dream of sexual obsession.

[weezer-5 · 10/10 · 18 July 1999]

I admit that I'm part of the Kubrick cult(people that follow his movies like a religion), and I was first in line to see this movie. Being a huge movie fan I've seen a wide variety of movies, and have walked away from them with a wide variety of emotions. This was the first movie to put me in a trance, or dream, like state. The way the movie was shot, lighted, and so on gave the feel of a dream (to me at least). I believe that this feel is just what was needed and what Kubrick wanted. Everyone has to admit to thinking about the dark side of sex, and I believe that in this movie we see that a person can explore the buried desires of their sexual id and still come away a good person.

I'm guessing that this was a very personal movie for Kubrick. He seemed to take Cruise's character to places that he, personally, wished he could explore. Places, like a prostitute or an orgy, that he'd like to visit, but not want to stay at very long.

Praise has to go to Cruise and Kidman for their performances. Cruise was able to strip away his movie star veneer that seems to protect him in all of his other movies, and bring through the clouded, tormented, and unsure heart of a jealous man. Kidman must have known that part of her role was to be eye candy, but she fought through that and gave the movie's best performance.

To anyone out there thinking about seeing the movie.....I say go. Some will hate it and others will love it, but half the fun of the movie lies in the discussions that will blossom from this great movie experience.

Not for everyone!

[kefakevin · 7/10 · 14 October 2020]

I'm sure I'm not the only one watching this movie in 2020. I was too young to watch it in 1999, anyway. I think the movie was pretty good but it's not for everyone. It's the kind of a movie that you can really like or really hate. If you like movies that leaves you thinking about them like the likes of no country for old men or seven psychopaths, you will love Eyes wide shut. If you don't like such Movies, please keep away from it coz it will bore you. I still think it should have been shorter, though. 2 hours 40 minutes is a lot for the movie in my opinion.

Long slow journey to nowhere

[Flyer-6 · 1/10 · 17 March 2001]

Eyes Wide Shut is a long, slow journey that leads... nowhere. While there are some attention-grabbing scenes such as the one in Victor Ziegler's pool room, too much of the film has the feeling that they are trying to fill out time. Nicole Kidman gives a good performance and Sydney Pollack is very good, but Tom Cruise is, well, the same old cocky, one-dimensional Tom Cruise. Unknown, bit actors kept showing him up in scene after scene; it got a little embarrasing. If he wasn't good looking, he would have a hard time getting work.

I guess if you have 2.5 hours to kill and don't mind a movie that takes you nowhere, you might enjoy this film.

Kubrick's final masterpiece

[SKG-2 · 10/10 · 19 July 1999]

After three years of waiting, EYES WIDE SHUT has finally come out. So now after all this time, the delays, the rumors, the teases, the sad death of its director, Stanley Kubrick, we finally get to answer the question, Does it live up to the hype? For the first time this year, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. This is, so far, the best film I've seen this year, and it deserves its place among other Kubrick masterpieces like DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

Although I had been looking forward to this film, I must admit I was unsure about it at first. After all, since CLOCKWORK, Kubrick's films(BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and FULL METAL JACKET), while having some good parts, have all been somewhat flawed, particularly THE SHINING. But my misgivings were quickly put to rest within the opening scenes, where we get a glimpse of both what's right on the surface(nine happy years of marriage, wealth, a healthy 7 year old daughter, both husband and wife with jobs) and the possibility of storms that lurk underneath(the practiced way they get ready for the party, hardly looking at each other), and I stayed enthralled throughout.

Now I'd like to use this forum to deflect some of the criticisms I've read of the movie so far. One, of course, is that this is not really New York City, but a soundstage in England. I've lived in New York City and visited several times, and the surface details seem right, but more importantly, this is set in the "rich" area of Manhattan, which has always been idealized in movies(particularly the Woody Allen ones), and thus it's appropriate in a dream-like movie to play to the fantasy of the city, rather than the reality.

Secondly, we are given no hint that this is a dream Cruise's character may be walking in, since it looks so real(yes, that's inconsistent with the criticism up above, but to be fair, I've only seen a couple of reviews which make that mistake). First of all, dreams rarely look like they were designed by Salvador Dali(at least, my dreams). Secondly, if the whole nighttime sequence looked like a dream and nothing else, we would laugh when Cruise goes back to the various places he visited at night; how would he know to go back to them if they weren't real? Finally, in the way the narrative unspools, it's played like a dream, complete with scene where he might be awakening(the scene with Domino(Vinessa Shaw), the prostitute, where his cell phone rings and Kidman is on the phone right before he can do any damage).

Thirdly, that Kidman is only in the film for 40 minutes of its 2 hour, 40 minute running length. Now granted, that is all of her screen time, but when Cruise enters his "dream state", she is always in back of his mind, not just in the flashback scenes(when he imagines her having sex with the sailor she had fantasies about), but in the fact that all the other women he comes across are meant to make him think of Kidman. And her performance is certainly strong enough(especially in her monologues) to linger in the mind.

Fourth, that Cruise is completely flat here. Again, at least in the dreams I've had and read about, often in dreams we react to events, not provoke them, and that's what his character does. Secondly, Kubrick and Cruise play off of his image, to make him the object of desire of everyone he meets, and not just women(I like to think the scenes where he's harassed by a group of teenage thugs who think he's gay, and where hotel concierge Alan Cumming seems to be coming on to him, are Kubrick's way of joking about the rumors of Cruise being gay which have dogged him). For all of that, I think he plays it exactly right.

Finally, that the film is flat and not really sexy. Once again, unless it's a nightmare, dreams aren't played at MTV speed. Secondly, contrary to what we heard at first about the film, this isn't about sex. Rather, this is about sexual obsession, so it's not supposed to be about sex the act. It may seem like the film cheats a little by asking us to play off our expectations of Cruise and Kidman as a couple, so we just picture in our heads them having sex, rather than us seeing it, but isn't it good that some things are left to our imagination? Besides, it's only on the surface that things look good, as I said before.

Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read DREAM STORY, the novella this is based on, and so have no answer to those who claim this is a poor adaptation(though what some have called stilted dialogue I think adds to the dreamlike quality, and I'm normally on the lookout for flat dialogue), and that may be true. But this is an excellent film, a fitting epitaph for Kubrick, and proof once again that Cruise can act when he's teamed with a real director.