Subtle, slow, engaging, and limp

Rating: 8/10 (16 July 1999)

Just saw it, and thought about sitting through it again, but decided I didn't want to.
I did like it.
Eyes Wide Shut was like a big, jeweled ball, fascinating to look at and experience, but ultimately nothing more. The press about the crafting is accurate, and maybe I can understand the length of production. I didn't think it was very sexy however, and I don't think that's just because I'm gay. It was more than sexy, it was something new that we've seen before: the art of Stanley Kubrick. [What does that mean John?] (I don't know.) It did have a plot, and a strange, somehow suspicious, message. Kubrick was self-indulgent in making and editing Eyes Wide Shut, but I felt self-indulgent watching it. The use of light was fantastic, really the most memorable part of the film. I could understand why people were laughing, but I was not laughing. The movie carried itself. Two women stopped us outside the theatre and surmised that we'd just seen it. They'd walked out and wanted to know how it ended. I said, "You walked out." We didn't tell them.