Not one of Kubrick's best

Rating: 6/10 (14 March 2000)

The much hyped "Eyes Wide Shut" didn't really meet my expectations as a big fan of Stanley Kubrick's works. While I am more enamored of his less artistic works to begin with, such as "Dr. Strangelove" or "A Clockwork Orange", this movie didn't even meet the levels of "2001".
One of the best parts of most of Kubrick's work is that he keeps you enraptured throughout his films, never taking your eyes off the screen. Not so here. The first 45 minutes seem to stretch on endlessly. Nicole Kidman, especially, is simply playing a bad character. She isn't so much the wife on the protagonist, Tom Cruise's Dr. Bill Hartford, as much as she's another aspect of the libido we explore throughout the film. This is symbolized ad nauseam, mainly in the fact that Kidman takes about 30 seconds between every word she speaks, so as to give the impression of a far off angel, I suppose.
There are some good spots, when Cruise's character hits the street. Vinessa Shaw, a lady of the street, and Todd Field, an old friend who shows him another world of sorts, are very good. There are some moments that make you sit up and say "Wow", the kind of thing only Stanley Kubrick can do. The problem here is that Kubrick tries to inject too many of those moments into his film, instead of letting them come naturally, and it doesn't have the same effect.
All in all, this isn't a bad movie, but not as good as you might expect given some of the names working on out. There is layer upon layer of symbolism and insight, and sometimes it crashes upon itself, and you're left wondering what exactly Kubrick was aiming for with certain scenes. The movie is worth seeing, but don't go in with your expectations too high, especially if you're familiar with some of Kubrick's earlier works.