Eyes Wide Shut Review
by jbarlow AT earthling DOT netJuly 19th, 1999
EYES WIDE SHUT
A movie review by Joe Barlow
(c) Copyright 1999
STARRING: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack DIRECTOR: Stanley Kubrick
WRITERS: Frederic Raphael and Stanley Kubrick
RATED: R
RELEASED: 1999
I really wanted to love "Eyes Wide Shut," the much-hyped final film from the the late Stanley Kubrick. I'd hoped to use this review as a soapbox from which to praise and mourn one of cinema's most innovative filmmakers, and I wanted to be able to tell you that "Eyes" is a remarkable achievement, a visceral odyssey of sight and sound that would prove, like Kubrick's best work, impossible to shake. Such words would make the director's untimely death (he passed away four days after completing work on the project) even more tragic, as he appeared to be on a creative upswing: Kubrick had reportedly been gearing up for another film, a promising sci-fi thriller entitled "A.I." But now, whether he intended it or not, this final movie must forever bookend the remarkable career which began with 1953's "Fear and Desire" and progressed through such cinematic milestones as "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Spartacus," "Lolita," "The Shining," "Dr. Strangelove" and "A Clockwork Orange." Could any film possibly ascend to such lofty heights?
Preliminary signs looked good: "Eyes" has generated positive word of mouth from the handful of people who were allowed an early peek at the completed film. Even with the good buzz, however, relatively few plot details were available for the asking: a fierce veil of secrecy, reportedly instigated by Kubrick himself, has blanketed the project almost from the start. About the only details I knew going into the screening were: a) the film reportedly takes a cerebral look at sexual dysfunction; b) the movie was nearly rated NC-17 because of its nudity and depiction of sexual acts; and c) the film's stars (and real-life spouses) Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman have plenty of opportunity to 'get jiggy' with each other on-screen. Walking into the theater, I wondered exactly what I was going to get.
So how does the movie stack up? Well, I'll put it this way: I saw the film on opening day with two of my closest friends, and our opinions covered the entire spectrum. While I had significant problems with the story, I found much of the film brilliant, overflowing with the Kubrickian touches that have made his work such indelible artistic achievements. Friend #1 was basically indifferent, citing a couple of things he enjoyed and a couple he didn't, but overall possessing no strong opinion either way. Friend #2 called it "unquestionably the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life."
I can understand all three viewpoints. "Eyes Wide Shut" is far from perfect and nowhere near Kubrick's best work, but I think that one's potential appreciation (I hesitate to use the word "enjoyment") of the film will depend primarily on the expectations the viewer brings into the theater. As usual, Kubrick establishes a laconic pace early-on for the story, which will unquestionably bore many viewers (never have I heard so much restless shuffling from an audience). Surreal images float dreamlike across the screen. Long passages of the film are rendered in absolute silence as the director allows our eyes, not our ears, to convey the full story. It is, in short, business as usual for a Kubrick film.
The marketing campaign is directly responsible for the disappointment and confusion many audience members feel after screening the movie. "Eyes Wide Shut" is being advertised as a rauchy sex-fest, but it's nothing of the sort-- although the film contains a rather extreme amount of nudity, the concept of sexual dysfunction is explored with a cool, aloof eye from Kubrick. Yes, there's a lot of on-camera sex, but it's neither erotic nor passionnate. Everyone has been objectified to the point where all desire is irradicated. People here seem to make love simply because it is expected of them, not because they have any wish to perform the action. Despite the nudity, you'll be hard-pressed to find a LESS erotic movie.
The story, in a nutshell: Bill Harford (an excellent performance by Tom Cruise) is a happily-married doctor living with his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) and their daughter in upper-middle-class bliss. Bill's life seems perfect until Alice drops a bombshell on him, admitting that she still thinks about sex with other men despite the decade-long marriage the couple have enjoyed. After Alice confesses that she nearly cheated on her husband with a naval officer, Bill enters a 48-hour state of mental turmoil, during which he becomes immersed in a seedy underworld where sex, scandal and death are bedmates.
First, the good news: "Eyes Wide Shut" is constructed with the considerable technical virtuosity that Kubrick has demonstrated in nearly all his films. It boasts the loveliest cinematography I've seen in recent memory (Kubrick was a staff photographer for LOOK magazine before he embraced filmmaking, and he knew how to use lighting, angles and color to maximum effect), making the film fascinating to watch even when the pace lags. Tom Cruise turns in an Oscar-caliber performance for his role as the confused and hurt Dr. Bill. The film boasts a rich, chilling gothic atmosphere, which serves the story's tone well.
Now, the not so good: "Eyes Wide Shut," even by Kubrick standards, is excessively long and often uninvolving. The sparse musical score (consisting almost entirely of a solo piano playing two notes) is repetitive to the point of madness. (I'm sure it was done for atmosphere, but by the end of the movie the audience burst into laughter each time it appeared.) And at times, the movie seems unsure of what it's supposed to be, and what it's trying to say.
Still, even if it doesn't quite work, "Eyes Wide Shut" will likely be remembered as a great experiment gone slightly wrong. I respect Kubrick's attempt to embrace complex themes and tell an astoundingly orignal story, rather than adopting cheap cliches and formula, as so many other filmmakers choose to do. It's not a perfect film, but Kubrick afficianodos, a group I consider myself part of, will no doubt find much to like, even if these praiseworthy aspects have more to do with the film's technical elements rather than the actual storytelling. It's not the be-all, end-all Kubrick film that I'd hoped it would be, but it has much to offer the patient viewer.
Whether non-fans will like it is another question entirely. It's possible, as long as they're expecting a cerebral odyssey and not a porn movie.
BASE RATING: ** out of a possible ****
(Subtract half a star if you're not a Kubrick fan. Add one star if you're a die-hard fanatic.)
**************************************************************** Copyright (c)1999 by Joe Barlow. This review may not be reproduced without the written consent of the author.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Joe Barlow on Film: http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow/film.htm
If you'd like to receive new film reviews by e-mail, please write to: [email protected]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
