Why so many people don't like this movie

Rating: Null/10 (10 September 1999)

EYES WIDE SHUT is an excellent film to use to determine, at least in part, the level of intelligence of the person you watched it with, based on their comments about it afterwards. Opinions are extremely divided on this movie, and following are the partial reasons why some don't like it; but ultimately, anyone who claims EYES is a failure is not worth wasting your breath on. If they watched this movie all the way through, and had only negative comments about it, you can be assured that their eyes do not see, and their minds cannot comprehend, brilliance. And I don't mean 'questionable brilliance' as in a sculpture or some other work of art which some claim is a masterpiece and others regard as horrible; I'm talking about palpable, obvious brilliance that anyone who is not a media slave can recognize. Many reviewers, professional and otherwise, claim that EYES didn't 'live up its hype'. These people are merely conformists guided only by what they see and hear on TV. They had false expectations of perhaps a sexy, light drama along the lines of most the other 'married stars' fodder they've been fed in recent years. When EYES turns out to be a daring, deep, esoteric thriller about the darker side of marriage, and very different from any other movie, they feel they've been 'let down'. These people are hopelessly anesthetized by the media, and are better off with Adam Sandler films, when they know what to expect: brainless drivel, which fulfills their deep desire to escape from having to use their intelligence. EYES is definitely not a movie for people who really think Sandler comedies are hilarious. Those people need shi* to survive, and there's plenty of it out there for them to roll in. You shouldn't bother them to try to explain EYES, or beseech them to go see it again; this is caviar and they only know oatmeal. In addition to saying it's "not what they expected", they're the same people who complain about the 'piano pinging' or call the film 'too weird'. Also, some people have seen Kubrick's previous films, and therefore expected something outrageous, as in Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket. They see EYES as merely a film in which Cruise walks around the streets for the whole movie: with few action sequences, they walk out and label the film a failure. They can't appreciate anything but that which holds their interest at the moment. Yet they believe that because they watch Kubrick films, they are on some higher level than Sandler fans. They are wrong. But the most prevalent and disturbing reviewers have been women. Apparently, this masterpiece is completely misunderstood by many women, whose opinions I've heard personally and in print, and without exception are highly critical. The orgy sequence in particular has caused a lot of women to say the film is merely soft porno, and/or pretentious and unbelievable; and they have misinterpreted (to an amazing degree) the fact that for the most part, only women are naked, and Cruise has no nude scenes. As if Kubrick should have inserted a gratuitous shot of a naked Cruise in order to pacify some really stupid people and 'live up to the hype'. These complaints are just ridiculous and juvenile. In Clockwork Orange, the complaints about excessive misogynistic tendencies were justified: none of that stuff was in the book, it was Kubrick's obnoxious way of making the movie 'his'. He was still learning how to translate novels into movies successfully. He also loved to shock people, but he sometimes lost control of himself in his desire to deviate from the norm. 2001 is the exception to that, and so is EYES, which wraps up Kubrick's career beautifully and shows the brilliance of 2001 was not a fluke. The screenplay faithfully follows a brilliant book that was written decades ago, with some embellishments that add to the cryptic nature of the film, but never sacrifice shock for quality, or obnoxiously force Kubrick's personal beliefs on the viewer, as in "Clockwork". EYES is pure art of the highest quality, with absolutely no concessions to studio executives or the many Neanderthals among the moviegoing public who crave the exact same picture over & over. It's a movie for people who like to actually use their brain, and can appreciate such things as cinematography, screenplay, great acting, and virtuoso directing. There are some scenes in EYES which will have your jaw on the floor. If someone feels like walking out or snickering at these scenes, they probably should leave and rent a Garry Marshall movie, where everything is obvious and condescending, and no thinking is required. If you liked the movie but didn't understand a lot of it, and perhaps were frustrated by that, it's understandable, but don't call the film a failure. You're showing your ignorance. Read Dream Story, available in a book (along with the screenplay) called EYES WIDE SHUT. Many of your questions will be answered. This film is the best Kubrick has done since 2001. All the others in between were interesting and had many assets, but were ultimately flawed by excess and/or questionable translations by Kubrick from novel to screenplay. EYES does not suffer from that. The translation is excellent and very relevant; Cruise is amazing; the lighting is perfect; the soundtrack is truly spine tingling; and the orgy scene is one of the most incredible scenes in the history of film. In fact, the entire film leaves a haunting feeling. The many Christmas tree lights, the slightly, deliberately off-kilter faux New York sets, and the apartment interiors all add up to a unique after-effect that captures a certain, near-Christmas ambience better than any other film ever did. EYES is to be experienced, not merely seen. And if you know someone who doesn't like it, while you love it, then chances are you have a serious incompatibility with that person, and you should perhaps reconsider whatever you thought about that person's ability to appreciate the finer things in life. EYES WIDE SHUT is that good, and perhaps its brilliance will be realized by more people as time goes on; but I doubt it.