Defective screenplay brilliantly filmed

Rating: 7/10 (17 March 2000)

It is unfortunate that Stanley Kubrick who has given us so many brilliant films (`Spartacus'; `2001, A Space Odyssey'; `A Clockwork Orange'; `The Shining'; `Full Metal Jacket'), should end his career with this one. The biggest problem with this film is the screenplay, which is all the more perplexing since Kubrick helped write it. It is hard to comprehend how such a masterful filmmaker could miss the mark by such a wide margin.

Let me begin by saying that the technical aspects of this film were superb to the point of being superhuman. Kubrick's camera work was pure genius. The color and lighting were impeccable; incomparable in their impact and effect as well as their beauty. Anyone who has seen this film should go back and watch it again and just notice the way the sets are lighted, how the shadows are cast, how the rooms in the background are bathed in soft blue with contrasting colored lights perfectly splashed in to heighten the effect. As far as the sound, Kubrick can do more with the well placed single note of a piano than most directors can do with an entire orchestra.
That being said, the script can only be described as grossly disappointing. There were really two stories here. The first is the story of Bill (Tom Cruise) and Alice (Nicole Kidman) Harford's relationship. The second was the story of Bill's sexual odyssey resulting in his crashing of an orgy for the rich and famous. Too much was made of the first and not enough of the second. This should have been a psycho-sexual film noir suspense thriller. The elements were there for a good one. Bill's penetration of the sordid inner circle of sex games of the powerful could have been a riveting thriller with proper follow through. But instead, Kubrick chose to deflate this storyline with the unsatisfying dialogue between Bill and Victor (Sidney Pollack). He then returned to the Harford's relationship, which was a character study in `who cares'. He ends the film as if their relationship was the point, which left the film pointless.
Other than her ability to provide sexy set dressing, Nicole Kidman was utterly superfluous in this film. Worse yet, this was probably the most wretched performance of her career. Kidman is not without talent and has given us some excellent performances (`Malice'; `Dead Calm'). Her performance here was tentative and strained, however. There were times when she was so unnatural in the delivery of her lines, one would have thought she was aphasic.
Tom Cruise gave an excellent performance portraying a difficult and tormented character. It was somewhat of a departure for him to play a character that was so pent up and emotionally torn. He hasn't taken on a part this difficult since `Born On The Fourth of July'. Usually he plays the straightforward macho type; more action than depth. I was pleasantly surprised by his ability to rise to the challenge of this character's complexity.
I gave this film a 7/10. The filmmaking was a 12, but the story was never developed to its full potential. It would have been interesting to see what Alfred Hitchcock would have done with this story. Perhaps Stanley and Alfred are talking about that right now.