I Think I'm Disappointed

Rating: 6/10 (28 March 2019)

This is a difficult film for me to wrap my head around. Stanley Kubrick is unequivocally my favorite director of all time. My two favorite movies (Dr. Strangelove and 2001) are both directed by him and I love most of his films. He is objectively a master of cinema. Having that opinion going into a film can sometimes be problematic. I have to resist the urge of over-analyzing things and treat it like a regular movie. I find it hard to tell what is important in Eyes Wide Shut. Is it the dream vs. reality narrative? Is it the lust? The power of the ultra-rich? Something unseen and unsaid? Or, more likely, a combination of all of these things? There are a few films that are so different than what we're used to that you have to rely on a feeling that what you just watched was special in order to get a grasp on what you think of it. I think 2001 is an example of that but I think Mulholland Dr. is a better example. At the end of both films you basically have no idea what you just watched but, at least in my experience, you're okay with that. You know you're not supposed to get everything. With Eyes Wide Shut I didn't really get that feeling. I went into the film ready to watch something that I would recognize as amazing and ended up let down that I found it to be just alright. I was left with a lot of questions. I think a lot of this feeling can be attributed mainly to a couple of things. One being Nicole Kidman's character. I found too many of her scenes hard to watch. Her slow, monotone dialogue took over nearly every scene she was in and not for the better if you ask me. I understand that it's supposed to be somewhat dream-like but there is just too much of it for my tastes. The other thing that irked me was the theme music. I couldn't help but think that the piano theme was lazy and that is coming from someone who thinks that Kubrick movies have some of the best scores there are. I have a feeling that it was intended to make the viewer uneasy but I wasn't too big a fan of it. Conversely, I thought the framing and lighting were immaculate, as expected. Cinematography is not something you have to worry about with Kubrick. The acting was pretty good, including that of Kidman, I just had a problem with her character. The story was compelling and thought-provoking but that is more due to the source material than the film itself. The liberties that the movie takes with the source material is what has kept me thinking of it for the past few days and I think a film that is on your mind for days after (in a non-negative way) deserves some credit just for that. I am about as confused as I've been after watching a movie and I have a feeling that my qualms were intended but at this point they are mostly lost on me. The film is often thought of as misunderstood and I probably agree but, at this point in time, I don't find it to be a masterpiece.