What's the Problem?

Rating: Null/10 (9 February 2000)

I just don't get what Kubrick was trying to say with his final feature. I'm usually quite skillful at perceiving his subtexts and underlying themes, but here I'm admittingly stumped. Was that his true intention to leave me with these confused reactions? All I can recall is two spoiled married New York kids having a marital spat and then a soap opera scenerio of "will he cheat on her or not?" I didn't care.
Tom and Nicole go to a fancy, elite New York party, come home and argue. Drunk and stoned, she tells him she once had an urge to cheat on him. Being that most people have wild sex fantasies, this is almost a moot point, but Cruise reacts as if it is the surprise shock of the century. He's also a doctor, someone who should be more aware of these Freudian things than the so-called average person, but it still hits him like the coming of Armegeddon. The wife's argument is weak to the point of annoyance. She makes a monumental issue of his professional medical duties of examining women's breasts. They've been married for years, she's already known about it, so why should this suddenly be such a big deal? It comes off like obnoxious bickering and not effective dramatic conflict. It's like the brat who whines that they can't have seconds after having their cake and eating it too. My only reaction was, "that's her bummer". I DIDN'T CARE!
Next, Cruise decides to take to the streets and get his revenge on his almost cheating wife. The problem is nothing happens. Every time it seems like the plot is going to emerge into something, it is just suddenly dissipated. There's an interesting scene where Cruise is with a young hooker in her run down apartment. After they negotiate it seems like the story is starting to now take shape. Then his cell phone rings and he has to go. It's an irritating old sitcom routine, a cheesy ironic chuckle at best. Worse, it makes the whole scene you've just been struggling through useless and makes you feel as if you've just been taken advantage of. Was that Kubrick's purpose for some unknown reason?
Throughout this picture, Cruise appears constantly troubled internally. What is he troubled about? What's his problem? He and his wife had an argument and some feelings got hurt? Ever know of any couples who never had any problems like that? Is it that because two people are officially married, that means that they are now suddenly immune to all human failings? I didn't know that a marriage license was that infallible. If everything isn't consistently hunky-dory, does that mean things will be fated to erupt into a hopeless nightmare of horror? If Cruise's character is that much of a spoiled, naive prima-donna, then I frankly couldn't care less about his disturbed conscience or what eventually happens to his storybook marriage. Come out of your plastic bubble and security blanket and get real.
Is Cruise worried that he is not sexually desirable? Through-out the film many attractive women proposition him in one way or another, but he is the one who pulls out. When he is at the orgy, an unknown woman tries to help him by warning him of the possible danger that may be coming his way. Why would this woman, a total stranger (who is also a hooker and a junkie) stick her neck out for someone she doesn't even know? No hooker would risk losing her bread and butter for that and, in her case, it ends up putting her life in jeopardy. What's her motivation? He's wearing a mask, she has no idea of who he is, and, for all she knows he could be an undercover officer or a corrupt one looking for a blackmail opportunity. Why?
Cruise later returns to his wife and breaks down as if he just experienced the war of the worlds. Except for some embarrassing mishaps and some spent money (which shouldn't be that big of a deal to a well-to-do person like him), what terrible thing really happened to him? I hate to say it, but it all comes off as a 'much ado about nothing' presentation.
Obviously, I'm missing something. I saw this film two more times, hoping that some new perspective would surface, but I hit an impasse. With Kubrick, you have to look deeper than the usual celluoid creation, but I simply hit a blatant dead end. Possibly at a later time something will suddenly occur to me, but presently that's all I could absorb. I've always been a tremendous admirer of Kubrick, possibly one of his biggest fans, but this film regretfully strikes me as his weakest effort. It sincerely pains me to have to say that.
EYES WIDE SHUT is still interesting if the slow pace and length doesn't bother you, but it pales compared to the directors' other strongly memorable, artistic events.
Kidman gives a fine performance, though she has little to do through-out the second half, Cruise is not at all bad, and the supporting players are all quite impressive in spite of the script's problems. The music during the orgy scene (which is not really that shocking) is compelling, the photographic images are splendid and engrossing as they always have been, but the story falls short. I just feel it didn't come close to its actual potential, whatever that precisely was. Later, it starts to turn into a mystery thriller, and just when that started to involve me, the rug got pulled out again. Was that his purpose for some reason? Was it his intention for the viewer to be left with deliberate mixed feelings? Was he saying that many of our problems and worries are mainly just in our minds? Are we suppose to be left confused and not knowing? Is it possible that "knowing" doesn't really change anything and that perhaps it can even worsen things? I could go on and on, but hopefully you got the idea. Somebody tell me - WHAT WAS THE POINT?
Truthfully, I hope I will eventually change my ambivalent views of this great director's final work. He contributed so much to the art and to his fans. His influence was overpowering. Simply put - There will never be another Kubrick. It's for these great reasons that I felt disappointed with this interesting failure.