|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 84)
|
|
 |
Beautiful, complicated, intriguing, enchanting movie. There really isn't anything I didn't like about it. Well, I'm not a Tom Cruise fan but his chemistry with then-wife Nicole Kidman is electric and spot-on, in every situation and mood. Much as I loved it, I wouldn't recommend it to many others. People tend to expect fast-paced, easy-to-watch films... and this isn't one of them. Though I personally delight in every moment, it's not hard to see that most people would find this one way too slow-moving and subtle. Like all Kubrick films, this will either captivate you or repel you.
9/10
6.1.2008 -
scotcanliz@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
When a couple grow bored with each other he decides to dabble outside the marriage and gets drawn into more than he bargained for: aids, prostitution, child sex exploitation, drugs, and murder.
9/10
27.2.2007 -
rosalee,walker@ - age: 36-49
The final film of Stanley Kubrick honours what mattered to him as a director most: color, timing, sequencing, and imagery. To the audience looking for cheap thrills and steamy sex scenes, the film must have seemed nothing but a pretentious bore. Kubrick's sensual exploration into the dream world of sexual fantasy conquers in its deliberate ability to blur the line between truth and lies, fantasy and reality. Kubrick, a devoted husband, leaves parting advice for those willing to listen: infidelity, whether real or imagined, matters. And this is a film that matters.
10/10
31.3.2006 -
tommyboy_3d@ - age: 18-25
Awful!!! I couldn't stand to get through the first 5 mins let alone the first hour. I stuck through it and it was HORRIBLE.
1/10
11.7.2004 -
astinkymagoo@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Its really different through viewing differently at sex phantasy and familial relations. I am highly impressed by the title, eyes which are wide open still inable to see the facts around! It needs not just eyes to see but an intelligence behind it to process..
9/10
27.4.2004 -
mehrdad,tavousi@ - age: 36-49
Not Kubrick's best film, but if you are a fan, it's a must see. Some of it is brilliant, some of it can cure insomnia but Kubrick films never follow the formula narrative. He was the last great 'auteur' director and has made some very very interesting films thru his career.
8/10
7.3.2004 -
emanmark666@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Dr. Bill Harford and his wife Alice are presented as a very happily married young couple with a marvelous little daughter, Helena. Apparently this is a superior family, highly respected by Bill's more prosperous medical patients, who he visits conscientiously and they provide an excellent livelihood. The problem is that Bill is so dependent on them, he must conform to their peculiar, abnormally rotten life style, which also controls the existence of New York itself, as far as enslaving the people. There is a supernatural element in Dr. Bill's doctor-patient connection, because these elite men govern women as their victims, and engage in magical sex rituals that poison Bill spiritually against his wife. But Bill's wife Alice, although slandered by him in evilly imposed visions through their rituals, communes psychically in dreams and lovingly supports her husband, actually saving his soul and preserving their loving marriage.
10/10
28.12.2003 -
bonnsaul@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
At its heart, this movie seeks to contrast infidelity of the body versus that of the mind. Kubrick asks a simple question: how can one control or understand the presence of lustfull thoughts? The physical adultery wrestled with by Tom Cruise is by its very nature real and tangible. But can he control or ever predict adultery of the mind by his wife, Kidman? Unfortunately, Kubrick loses sight of the intense possibilities in his question by littering his movie with a sexist, male approach to sexuality. The penultimate scenes are filled with images of naked, cavorting female bodies. The perfection of their bodies is masked by a complete lack of facial identity. Conversely, male sexuality is limited to a series of dream sequencies experienced by Cruise, as he interprets Kidman's fantasies with her "dream lover." Thus, the movie has more idealogy linking it to Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" than to questions that disturb us decades later. Yes, the lighting and camera work are stunning at times, but at others, you know you're staring at some studio backlot. Moreover, the plodding musical score detracts from rather than enhances the movie experience. Cruise and Kidman do their best to wrestle with the stilted dialogue and complete lack of interesting plot. This lack of plot is what ruins a noble final effort by Kubrick. People who like this movie will no doubt be HUGE Kubrick/Cruise/Kidman fans. The question arises then: Would this film be any good if it lacked such blockbuster names as the Director and stars? The answer is no.
5/10
25.12.2003 -
sclehman@ - age: 36-49
Pathology, more exactly psychopathology, is the main metaphor in Eyes Wide Shut. The movie depicts a society in the last stages of dysfunction in its ideological structures. Guess you could say the devil has been busy in the American paradise and the signs are there in Kubrick's New York scenes. The cloaked residents of the luxuriously sombre Somerton chateau could very well be Satan's troops, judging by their bizarre psychotic inhumanity and sadism toward women. Arthur Schnitzler, next to William Shakespeare, may be Kubrick's favorite author. He wrote (in German) Rhapsody, A Dream Novel (late 1920s) , that Kubrick used as the basis for Eyes. That's all I got to say right now.
10/10
15.5.2003 -
bonsaul@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I liked the movie. Very good!
7/10
25.4.2003 -
chantal,belanger@ - age: 26-35
|
