Solid Kubrick, great flick!

Rating: Null/10 (14 September 1999)

Let's face it - Stanley Kubrick's last film was always going to generate a lot of interest regardless of how good it was. There are a number of reasons for this: firstly and most importantly, that all of Kubrick's other films are very, very good. Stanley was, by all accounts, an exacting director who demanded a lot, but gave a lot in return. His death has deprived the film world of a rare genius; it will be a long time before we see his like again.
Leaving all this emotive stuff behind, what's the film actually like? Well, it's quite slow to begin with: the music is lovely, the set is exquisite, but all the speeches are very drawn out, especially in the party sequence at the beginning of the movie. Indeed, as my friend pointed out, the party begins to develop just like a Ferrero Rocher advert - complete with dodgy Hungarian accent and arched eyebrows. All we're missing is an old waiter with superb balancing skills and "Monsieur - with this Rocher you're really spoiling us!" It's hard not to think that Stan's having a big celestial laugh - why all this melodrama? After all, it apparently wasn't unheard of for Kubrick to re-shoot a scene fifty, sixty, seventy times - so nothing is left to chance: if Stanley doesn't like it, it ain't in the movie. So, Kubrick must have wanted it that way. The point? Pretentiousness? Are we supposed to laugh at these people? Hmmmm. Don't know. That's something you're going to have to be prepared for when you watch this movie (like the rest of Kubrick's films): thought. Your thought and consideration is definitely required.
Things progress fluidly enough, and before you know it, there's a pot-fuelled revelation, a sexual proposition, and well-to-do people begin screwing like bunnies over luxurious decor. It's all cracking stuff; the tense moments are almost unbearable, the acting is solid (more Kidman, please), and the lighting is absolutely fantastic - full marks go to cinematographer Larry Smith there. Coupled with this, the colour schemes are very interesting, as is the fact that it was not shot in Cinemascope (the really wide widescreen format), as I had expected. Interesting - I wonder why?
The British running time is two hours and forty minutes, so if you're not happy about sitting in the same place for that long, maybe this isn't the film for you. I can't honestly say that I was conscious of the huge length of the film, as it interested me a great deal. But it's not the sort of movie to go and see if you're restless or have bladder problems. As for nudity and sexual stuff, there is a fair bit, but I don't think it's hugely titillating - just a bit weird in places. If you love Kubrick's other films, then you'll love this. If you're wanting to watch your first film directed by Kubrick, but you've got no idea which one to choose from, it's worth bearing in mind that he directed a film in practically every genre. So, while you're here at the IMDB, search under `Kubrick, Stanley', and take your pick - horror, war, sci-fi, costume drama, comedy, thriller - he's done em all (almost).
It's inevitable that Kubrick's death has generated a great deal of interest in this movie, combined with a very long movie shoot and troubled casting, so the stakes are high. But the long and the short of it is this: "Eyes Wide Shut" is a good movie, Kidman and Cruise are excellent, and this is a thought-provoking, intelligent swansong from the genius who brought the world such classics as "The Killing", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket" and many, many more. Stanley - thank you. I shall miss you.