Very fine, but flawed, valedictory from a legend

Rating: 8/10 (27 November 2012)

Being a life-long Kubrick fan, I had very high hopes for this, his final film. And it did not surprise me that after the first viewing, I honestly didn't like it very much. (This is often the case with Kubrick's movies.) Yes, it has the classic Kubrick flourishes -- elegant, even lush, cinematography, musical refrains that stick in the brain like cockle-burrs, delightfully off-beat characters that you just don't see in other films -- but there was still something, well, missing.
Kubrick has always (at least since "Dr. Strangelove," and excluding "The Shining") taken chances with casting. For "2001: A Space Odyssey" he used two fairly obscure actors named Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood; later choices included Malcolm McDowell, Ryan O'Neill, Marisa Berenson and Matthew Modine. They all worked (some would disagree) because Kubrick basically broke them down and molded them to suit his vision of the performance. But "Eyes Wide Shut" departs from the practice, employing Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, two of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time. I understand the rationale -- Cruise and Kidman were married, though they'd split soon after "EWS" was released, theoretically creating a more believable pairing for Bill and Alice Harford. But Kubrick has never let such matters as star power or compatibility influence his choice of actors before ... why now? Was it because "EWS" is such a strange, potentially scandalous movie that Kubrick feared no one would see it otherwise? This seems unlikely for the director of "Lolita" and "A Clockwork Orange."
Whatever Kubrick's rationale, Cruise and Kidman simply don't work in these roles. I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan, though I've liked him in certain roles. He just doesn't have the chops for a role this challenging. Kidman is a fine actress, but she comes off as flighty, shrill, angry and submissive by turns; there is no real emotional center to her character, and perhaps no actress could give her one.
The story itself is straightforward enough when you remember the source material: "Traumnovelle," or dream story. Where in the story the dream begins is the question. I think it is when Bill comes home to find Alice dreaming; she wakes up, he falls asleep. There are other clues, such as the costume shop, which has been reconfigured when Bill returns his cowl the day after the party. Also, note how in the first half of the movie, women come on to Bill; in the second half it's the other way 'round (without success). I also have a theory that the movie is essentially Kubrick's second crack at Joyce's "Ulysses" ("2001" being the first), but I'll leave it at that.
Such notions only come with repeat viewings. This is the ONLY way to experience a Kubrick film. I've never liked his movies as much the first time as I did the second or third. He packs too much information into every frame for my brain to apprehend it all.