9 Year Itch

Rating: 6/10 (16 December 2019)

I looked at the reviews on here before watching this and oh my, how wrong most people are.
Some are dismissing it as rubbish and others are pretending they are not looking at it as a sex film and pretend they know about its psychology and art, they looking too deeply into it and rating it higher than it deserves when really they are just getting off on the naked women in it. And what they say about it is mostly fantasy (not the sexual fantasy in the movie) but a fantasy that is in their own minds.
This film is not about sexual fantasy's at all, it is a porno dressed up as a drama come thriller, about a married couple coming to a point in their relationship where its got a bit stale and it needed something like this to sort themselves out, a bit like a 7 year itch (in this case they are married for 9 years), the problem was that they were too truthful with each other. She had a sex fantasy after being "hit on" at a party and when she told him he decided to try a bit himself, there's nothing dark or mysterious about it, with some people it happens. But they have added a lot of nakedness to spice it up a bit.
The movie started out as a drama, and turned into a kind of thriller, after Cruise stumbled upon an orgy involving high up people who did not want it to be found out, but nothing too serious, they just wanted to (and succeeded) scare him off.
The acting from Cruise and Kidman was very good, the cameo by the noted Director Sydney Pollak was also good, the few supporting actors were ok, you did not see a lot of them because many had masks on. Direction was average, Stanley Kubrick was on his last film, and although he has made some good films, he has also made some poor ones, this is about middle for him. The music was a bit dreary though and it moved too slow, some of the dialogue was very slow, not like real, it was trying to be over dramatic. It is 2hr 40 mins in length and was too long, it was a bit boring most of the time, they could have shortened it without losing much and it would have been better, or they could have put more in, made the thriller part a bit more thrilling with more intrigue and a bit of action, just a bit and it would have been ok for the length.
Personally I believe many of the High rated reviews are because they are repressed sex pests and were just excited to see a few sexy female bodies, and did not see much else, because they were inaccurate about some of the details. Maybe its why they made it like that to attract the perverts? Another thing I noticed was that you hardly saw any naked men (blurred in distance) and all the women on this film are tall, blonde and leggy, and almost all are stripping off with good views of their bums, is this a Stanley Kubrick fetish ? Did he make this film just so he could masturbate over his favourite type of woman ? Was he a Harvey Weinstein type ?
I gave it a 6 for the intrigue and good acting, if a bit shorter or more exciting, or not for the porn angle it would have been higher.
I am pretty sure that the perverts who pretend it is stylistic will diss me for my comments, it's because they don't like it when someone points out the obvious.