Second-rate Kubrick tops first-rate most other directors.

Rating: Null/10 (8 March 2001)

I won't hide the fact that I regard Kubrick as one of the great directors, and that I've never seen one of his films that I didn't find worthwhile, if not always overwhelming. "Eyes Wide Shut" certainly didn't overwhelm me, but it was evocative and absorbing throughout. I don't understand why it was puffed as an "erotic" film; I can hardly imagine a less erotic one--even with a couple of the more attractive stars and a lot of visible flesh, this came off to me as anti-erotic. I also find it puzzling that a lot of commentators here didn't grasp the fact that this was not supposed to reflect any kind of realistic or naturalistic world. It evoked an eerie otherworld, into which an irredeemably ordinary couple stumbles. I admire Cruise and Kidman for their willingness to commit themselves to what must have been an exhausting experience. (I also have to wonder whether Kubrick's obsessive perfectionism was not threatening to become a kind of black hole into which all his energies would be sucked forever.) Kubrick has never really been an actor's director, and the work of Cruise and Kidman, while they must have given it their all, is not what sets this film apart. What does is look, atmosphere, and, yes, music. Kubrick had a genius for finding published music that adds enormously to the total impact of a scene. The Ligeti music was especially effective in this regard. If you haven't seen this one, I'd go--but leave your top-drawer expectations at home and take it for what it is: an often fascinating, entertaining piece of expressionism. It does seem a shame that some of our greatest artists go out on a less than stellar note...and, if I regret anything about "Eyes Wide Shut," that would be it.