Jeez, where do I start??? (SPOILERS)

Rating: Null/10 (7 August 2000)

Ok, so I just finally saw Eyes Wide Shut last night during Cinemax's Kubrick-fest, and I've so so many issues with it:
Let's talk up the good first. Nicole's stoned confession that kicks off Tom's torment is a stellar display of acting chops. Absolutely mesmerizing. I've been a vocal defendant of her underappreciated talent ever since Dead Calm, and her performance here confirms my beliefs even more after Malice and My Life. (Too bad that after this scene she pretty much gets tossed aside in Tom's journey.)
Great lighting! The blue hues and Christmas lights really lend themselves to Kubrick's icy filmmaking style. And the golden lustre at the party in the beginning made even Sidney Pollack look gorgeous. (Even though his home is roughly the size of Radio City...)
Ok, now the not-so-good. (Wait! Let me collect all my thoughts here...) Let's start with Tom's performance. While the wife thrives on all the well-publicized endless takes, Tom seems too studied and mannered to display any complex torment; this may have to do with screenplay itself, since he never actually acts on his adulterous impulses (with the hooker in the Village, at the Big Scene - which I'll get to later). He just looks too tired all the time. He's a truly expert actor (see The Color of Money, Jerry Maguire & Magnolia), but a Kubrick film is obviously not his forte.
There's the sets too. Kubrick of course tried to recreate downtown New York accurately, right down to every newsstand and Village Voice box, but, as a New Yorker, to me every street scene looks unbelievably fake; they're too clean and underpopulated. They look like sets out of Sesame Street. And where exactly on Long Island does that castle-of-sin exist? (Maybe out by the Hamptons, I don't know, but to take a cab there from Manhattan would cost a hell of a lot more than $75, and no way could he get out there, see what he sees, and be back by 4 am.)
Now, about the film's dramatic centerpiece: What exactly is that orgy scene? No information is supplied about it - not by the piano player or Pollack. Is is purely sexual decadence? Are there religious significances? (Everyone is dressed like Benedictine Monk performance artists.) And, if I understood it correctly, how did the junkie recognize Cruise? They're both wearing masks, and if that was Pollack on the balcony nodding to Tom, how did HE know that that was Tom? And if Tom had a vehicle of his own, why the hell did he take a cab out there?
And there's all these scenes that have no relevance or connection to the main story. What's with those guys shouting homophobic taunts at Tom? On what basis would they think that he was gay? Is it because he's walking around late at night downtown? (I've sucked face with another guy on the corner of St. Mark's and 2nd without so much as a glance from others.) Then there's the segments in the costume shop - what was that all that? First, the shopkeeper's daughter is found with those two Asian guys and the keeper's gonna call the cops, but later the two guys are there again? What is the connection? What does it mean? My roommate thought that the daughter was one of the models hitting on Tom at the party, but the daughter (Leelee Sobieski, whom I recognized from Deep Impact and Never Been Kissed) was definitely not one of those chicks. ??? And the sojourn with the hooker who, as learned later, is HIV positive? Call me naive, but I know of no NYC prostitute who brings a prospective client back to her apartment to woo and romance him. And what was with the scene in the motel lobby with Alan Cumming? God, I adore Mr. Cumming (B'Way's Cabaret), but his performance is totally out of whack with everyone else's. And the information he supplied - that Nick Nightingale (the pianist seemed "scared" with two big, beefy guys). Was Nick really returned to Seattle to his wife and kids? He had bruises on his face. What really happened to him?
I realize that I may be nitpicking, but is just a little plausibility too much to ask for? Maybe there's more going on here than cheap beer can provide access to. [I was on my fifth Coors Light when the film started; hey, Full Metal Jacket was on before this, and the first half of that film never ceases to creep me out, although at 9:00 (after the "me so horny" scene) I switched over to Sex & the City on HBO (Carrie's getting back with Big, and Samantha has issues with "funky spunk") - how can anyone resist?].
Anyway, back to EWS...I am totally disgusted with the MPAA's verdict, that we immature Amercans cannot view a few glimpes of arty sex, and must be protected with some digital trickery and censorship - if you've seen EWS, you know what I'm talking about (this reminds me of American Psycho, where not the brutal violence is taboo, but a menage a trois is just too must for our eyes. But this is a whole other issue...). I've never really been a Kubrick fan; I find The Shining to be nothing more than Jack being Jack (although I'm all about Stephen King, and it's always swell to see Shelley Duvall). A Clockwork Orange has an unrelenting artifice that I cannot get past. I haven't seen 2001, since sci-fi turns me off quicker than skinny boys from Chelsea (I didn't see Star Wars until it was rereleased a few years ago, as well as Empire, although I still haven't seen Jedi. And I HATE The Matrix, but that's yet another story).
In response to that guy who stated that if one doesn't understand Eyes Wide Shut, then one is lacking intellect or something like that. I realize that I am not an articulate man. I have intelligent thoughts about films that I cannot express in words. It does not equate me with stupidity, naivete, or undereducation. I know an amazing screenplay when I'm fortunate enough to witness it (Boogie Nights, Raising Arizona, The Sweet Hereafter, Breaking the Waves), although for some reason I cannot quite accurately comment on why it's so amazing. There's lots of us out here without the capacity of insight or intellect to have valid, "professional" input on this film. Give us plebes a little credit. Usually, when a film by a legend is incoherent, amateurish (don't get me started on the raw piano score here, which any three year old protoge can improve on), and suffering from a lack of cohesive structure, the "intellects" attempt to input their overanalizations onto a project that doesn't (shouldn't!) warrant it (see Lost Highway). Think about it: if anyone but Mr. Kubrick made this film, would y'all be so quick to heap praise?
Don't get me wrong. I respect Mr. Kubrick's work, his place in cinematic history. But as I've never "gotten" his work, I must speak. Eyes Wide Shut starts off fabulously, but eventually devolves into Kubrick's own two-steps-behind psyche. This film is not remotely scandalous, coherent, relevant, sexy, sensual, or even important today. He was holed up in his hermetic little world for too long, and didn't realize that his themes (infidelity, sexual obsession, death, and repentance) have been cataloged in numerous cheesy made-for-late-nite-cable "erotic thrillers". It's HIS eyes that are shut.
Lordy Lord, how can I impose a grade on this film? I really don't know what to ultimately make of it. When it ended, I had a pretty thorough discussion of it with the roommie, and any film that can make me talk about it for over thirty minutes deserves some kudos [see Chuck & Buck (please!), Lost Highway, again]. So obviously I cannot totally write Eyes Wide Shut off as a "bad" film.
So I guess that my verdict is that we all should view Eyes Wide Shut (at least) once, just to get an opinion. Most movies do not allow such intense debate. In this aspect, EWS is definitely worthy. I just don't see the reason for any deeper discussion. I don't know - maybe I just read my EW a little to fervently...