I know this makes me a heretic, but this film should have had at least half an hour trimmed.

Rating: 7/10 (10 August 2010)

It's amazing that a film this long and drawn out would actually leave so much unsaid and unclear. What's also amazing is that although I am a huge cinemaniac, I am willing to dare to say that the god of cinema snobs, Stanley Kubrick, made a film that was far from perfect. The bottom line is that although the plot was very interesting, the film was simply too low energy, too long and too over-stylized.
I must stop to make a horrible confession. Despite having now done over 9000 reviews for IMDb, I have very, very mixed feelings about Kubrick's films and the following are my insane opinions about many of his more famous films. Some are masterpieces--such as "Dr. Strangelove", "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing". Others, exceptional but flawed--"Spartacus" went on too long and should have ended at the 'I am Spartacus' scene (then it would have been perfect). Others, way, way, way overrated--"2001" is is definitely so. And others are so long and dull it boggles the mind--"Barry Lyndon" made we want to scream it moved so slowly.
As for "Eyes Wide Shut", it is far from Kubrick's best work and it is painfully slow...but it does merit watching. The basic story idea is, at times, intriguing. There is a lot to like. But, the film shows a certain painfully obsessive quality--a need to show EVERYTHING--every emotion, every grimace...almost every breath! Considering that Mr. Kubrick was well-known for his OCD-like qualities (often shooting scenes again and again and again as well as going months or years past deadlines), this isn't too surprising. Plus, by the time he made the film he was a bit of a film guru--and adored so much that no one would dare question why this movie clocks in at almost 168 minutes--whereas another director might complete the film in less than 120.
There is also one thing that boggled my mind about the movie. Although the film should have received an NC-17 rating (again, I assume this was withheld because it was a Kubrick film), even with gobs of full-frontal nudity, it managed to make sex boring! The way some of the sex scenes were so over-choreographed (especially at the party at the mansion where Cruise was the interloper) made me wish that despite the gorgeous women that they'd just cut much of it. As a result, while it's not a film I'd rush to show a teenager, it's almost sanitary enough that you could.
As far as the performances go, the best in the film was by Sidney Pollack. Unlike most everyone else in the film, he actually had some energy--like he was the only one awake among a half-asleep cast. I sure wanted to see more acting like this--and perhaps, in a way, Pollack was directing himself a bit.
So far, it really sounds like I disliked the film, though this isn't exactly true--I mostly just disliked the way it was directed (ahhh....I must be a heretic). As for the extremely sexy story, some of it was great. I liked how the film explored what might happen if couples are too open about their sexual fantasies and the irreparable harm it can cause. I liked the idea of a secret society made up of the rich and powerful. I liked the way that you never knew exactly whether or not Cruise might die. But, I also think I've seen much of this done better in John Frankenheimer's "Seconds". I know that Frankenheimer is a very, very well-respected director but know few would say he was better than Kubrick--but in this particular case I think he did a better job mostly because his film was more direct, less self-indulgent and lacked the occasionally annoying soundtrack. The bottom line is that I liked the film but far from loved it. And, for the most part, that was the reaction to the film when it debuted. Aside from the Kubrick worshipers, most seem to feel it was one of his lesser films.
Worth seeing but think three or four times about having your kids watch it!