Lost

Rating: 3/10 (29 December 2005)

The so-called genius of Stanley Kubrick is totally lost on me. I'm pretty sure I'm in minority in my opinion (and it IS only an opinion), but I find his films almost unwatchable. Technically brilliant but cold, unengaging and tightly sealed. Suffocating. I'm sure anyone who took over 12 months to make a film could come up with something passable, and "Eyes Wide Shut" is barely passable. Would we be talking about this film if it was directed by anyone else? Is it merely the high-budget high-brow version of a direct to video thriller? "Bedroom Eyes VII: The Masquerade" perhaps? The sexuality on display is stunningly unerotic, the music score heavy-handed (and caused ripples of laughter amongst the audience when I saw the film), the acting highly variable. Tom Cruise tries too hard as usual, and once again fails to come across as a believable character. Nicole Kidman's scenes at the party that opens the film are frankly awful, but for the remainder of the movie she is remarkable. The climactic orgy features some great Venetian masks but is mind-bogglingly heavy handed in execution... I've tried to justify the turgidness of the experience, thinking it actually tells the story of a man with no sexual imagination. Hence his visions of his wife sleeping with another man are flat and clichÃ©d, his responses to sexual situations are muted and almost coy. But even if that were the case, it doesn't make for an interesting cinematic experience. There's no passion on evidence in this picture, no animal lusts and desires and urges. It's too calculated - nothing is 'felt'. And as a result, "Eyes Wide Shut" sags and deflates under the weight of pretension.