Eyes Wide Shut Really, I should write two reviews of Stanley Kubrick's latest - and last - effort. One for those Stanleyphiles who've been waiting four years to see this, and another for the average joe headed to the movies on a summer night. Normally I wouldn't need to make the distinction; it would play for a short time at small independent art film houses, be a disappointment but garner respect, and quickly die in favor of a "Tribute to Kubrick" Dr. Strangelove revival.

Something twisted happened, though; someone, somewhere in a distribution company decided to hype this odd bit of work to the masses. Oops. The first time I mentioned that I saw it at work, everyone said "I heard about that; I want to see it." I still can't believe everyone's heard of this -- it must be Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Their casting is a large part of what's wrong with Eyes Wide Shut, as the film capitalizes on smashing their "good-guy" images more than on their acting talent. Nicole's performance is extremely irritating - her delivery is annoying and painful to watch, and she is naked for about 3/4 of the film. Tom plays the same old Tom, this time thrust into an odd sexual-ritual-orgy situation. He reacts the same way he did when he realized he loved Renee Zellweger in "Jerry Maguire." Ho hum.

I've heard several comments that this movie has no plot. Actually, it has a plot so simple that it's almost easy to overlook. Normal husband and wife start to yearn subconsciously for more, feel uncomfortable in life, and toy with cheating on each other in different ways, though neither actually sleeps around. They feel guilty, they get back together. In the middle of this simple equation, kinks such as a truckload of prostitues, graphic fantasies about sailors, a hooded and masked orgy, and more nudity than I or anyone present wanted to see at 9 am on a Saturday. It seeks to shock, and it does, but that doesn't make it any different from South Park when you get down to it, and at least South Park is funny.

So why should you see it? It features some scenes so well shot that you can see Stanley's handprints all over them, with some of the best use of lighting I've ever seen. The plot inconsistencies, including the totally inaccurate portrayal of New York, seem almost quaint to me, and I love that Cruise's character (an M.D.) can show his medical license and get any information/access to off-limits areas at the drop of a hat -- "No, see, I'm a doctor!" Not to mention, if you hate it, at least you get to see Nicole Kidman naked for the paltry $3 a matinee will cost you. You also don't want to be the last person who hasn't see this, which is not shocking at all if you saw Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange," or something like "A Cook, a Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," but is the most shocking thing to gain mainstream release in the U.S. for quite some time.

Don't take your kids to see this.
Don't make this a first date movie. Or second, or third...
Watch for the last lines of the film - they alone are why I give it a 4.

If you hate this, go rent "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." We still love you anyway, Stan.
-- by fenchurch Posted by Arcterex at July 20, 1999 12:38 AM