Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    Eyes Wide Shut

    Reviewed by
    pietroantoni@

    This has got to be Stanley Kubrick's worst film, a film to which he devoted almost three years of his life. Well let's start with the premise of the doctor and his wife (then Mr. & Mrs. Cruise) who become involved in sexual rituals of the worst type because of the good Doctor's patient/contacts. Fine! It's one thing to state the obvious but quite another matter witnessing this debacle on screen well over an hour, the entire film an insanely long, boring two and a half hours. In the grand scheme of this feature, there seem to be some rather smug reviewers on C C who have analyzed this film with such a fine tooth comb almost indicating that those who didn't appreciate its subtle, finer points are nothing but morons.

    Metaphysical themes abound in EYES, the spiritual implications of love, faithfulness, jealousy and even an odd one, that of secrecy, I believe are matters that did concern Kubrick in his private life. But I say: Who cares! We have all witnessed these emotions on film at one time or another, but Mr. Kubrick's intention was to turn the EYES experience into a technical and thematic work of art. What it truly happens to be is a study of psychopathology as characters are experiencing a state of debauchery somewhere in New York City, perhaps meaning to indicate that the city itself is pulsing with a degeneration of mores and morals. Odd that he had no inclination of setting this sexual saga in London or another part of the U.K.

    Another huge issue in the film is illusion vs. Reality, an important scene occurring as Alice relates a sexual tryst with a sailor which is pure fantasy yet her husband William (Cruise) seems crushed with jealousy, contemplating the faithlessness of his wife even though he knows it's FANTASY. Let's carry this a step further! One can speak of adultery by bodily contact, but what becomes absurd is this adultery of the mind in William's head though full aware his wife's so-called encounter was nothing but a sexual daydream of sorts! With what is happening on film, I would presume many divorces are more than imminent. As of 1999, divorce was so rampant in society yet with all this filth and hankering by these revolting couples, the word DIVORCE is never once mentioned in the film by anyone or in any situation!

    EYES is much too wordy a film for my liking. The never ending, ridiculous scenes of pure, ludicrous gabbing were getting more and more on my nerves with each second ticking by! Mr. Kubrick seems to feel that everything he puts on screen should spark controversy and discussion. It's all so mundane, silly and almost moronic in my eyes, but he might have a BIT of a point. As a male, I resented the fact that female nudity was constantly highlighted. Were I a woman, I t would have been pissed as we are in dark lit ambiances yet not a single male is ever nude. This simply makes no sense. For god sake it's a sexual orgy/nightmare of sorts. Why would the men NEVER BE NUDE!? Just another inexplicable absurdity! Further to male impropriety, I hated that sad supernatural element in Dr. Bill's idea of a doctor patient relationship which, in fact, lands him in the trouble he will experience. His elite male patients use women as virtual victims in their robust selfish, sexual rituals that eventually poison the doctor's spiritual ties with his wife, a wife that is doing all she can to keep things on some sort of even keel. Kubrick;s very sexist male approach to sexuality bothered me a great deal. The movie played out as soft porn for boys and immature men, which is exactly where I would place the esteemed director, contrary to what he might say.

    Some might call the film one blazing, amazing 'adventure'. My idea would be more like a dark, blazing season in hell! One can go on and on about Kubrick's brilliance in his ability to capture mood both in places and with individuals. Well if the moods of individuals happen to be sullen and annoying who wants to be witness to this for time on end! Get things out in the open and get over it would be my philosophy. The film seemed somewhat dated, perhaps deliberately so, as what we see in EYES WIDE SHUT was occurring over and over again during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, so I am told, flower children and even upper society indulging in this type behaviour before it was again brought to our attention by Mr. Kubrick.

    Something more of this husband and wife team of Alice and William! It struck me almost immediately that this was a couple in trouble even as the movie began. As we progress we see that these two individuals are very unlikable people, William especially as he seems much too ego-maniacal. Is there really anything appealing about these two? Mine is a negative answer! The supporting characters including Sydney Pollack are equally horrible characters, upper crust no bodies with a need to indulge in the nastier elements of life with their inhumanity and a profound sadism toward the female sex.

    It's almost astounding that Kubrick spent almost three years of his life on this self-indulgent s***! It appeared to me that his direction was minimal at best. The screenplay never sat well with me at any time. Cinematography seemed grand at times but most of the time it appeared lax and lacking in any sort of excitement, as if shot in some cheap joint for sexual trysts. It tried too hard for special camera angles that just looked forced. The choice of soundtrack or musical score, each track developing a specific mood seemed foisted on the audience in an almost unnecessary and insulting manner. The whole musical journey, in fact, ultimately detracts rather than enhances what is happening on screen. Oh! I might add that some of the wardrobe was attractive, but that was not the department of Kubrick though he would get final approval. The movie, according to my reading, got devastatingly bad reviews all round including the direction and acting. No one really liked the film and at AWARD TIME it was virtually shut out for prizes from all major organizations and critics' circles. And this includes the OSCARS which overlooked EYES in every single category. As they say, the proof is in the pudding! EYES was a debacle. Almost no one could appreciate this 'non-adventure' of a film despite its daring yet surprisingly not so daring exploits.

    1
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    pietroantoni@  6.6.2015 age: 36-49 14,540 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The movie review posted on this page reflects a personal opinion of one user. We are not responsible for its content.

    Did you see ''Eyes Wide Shut''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.