Disappointing And Over-Long But Some Good Elements

Rating: 6/10 (28 December 2013)

An overblown movie that could have been much better if it had been much shorter and directed a bit better, the whole thing is an enigma. How did so many top name talents wind up putting out such a mediocre product? Even otherwise good actors put in less-than-average performances in this one, making you wonder what direction Stanley Kubrick gave them. In other words, did Nicole Kidman decide on her own to talk incredibly slowly to the point of poor acting and unbelievability or did Kubrick tell her to do so for some unfathomable reason? I suspect (since Kidman has done much better work in other films) that Kubrick was going for some weird stylistic twist that just did not work. Tom Cruise is also unusually stiff in many scenes. The pace is too slow, too, and the characters unsympathetic. It's hard to get into a movie where you disrespect the characters. That being said, there's a basic core story here that doesn't unfold until nearly the middle of the movie that becomes interesting and should have been the focus of this movie. (One wonders what impact this movie might have had had the middle scene not been censored - with monk-like shapes placed strategically over naked bodies.) Another thing: why Kubrick felt the need to make Kidman's character a poor example of a wife is curious and gratuitous. Another stylistic annoyance: the characters' constant repeating of whatever someone says to them is really grating; both Cruise's and Kidman's characters are made to do this. Much of this movie should have wound up on the editing floor. There are too many boring scenes - even when characters are absolutely naked. Speaking of which, Kubrick's showing of Kidman's bare butt in several early scenes is gratuitous and obvious - not having its intended effect because these scenes have no reason for being in the film (at least that I can understand). She's dressing - so what? How does that move the story along? (It doesn't.) Another big gripe: the final scene limps off lamely without any real character redemption or discoveries and then ends scatologically to shock - with a gratuitous comment that only trivializes this movie and makes you wonder what Kubrick and his writers were smoking. That being said, there was a kernel of a good movie here, but it was lost in an attempt on the one hand to make a bigger picture out of this tale than exists here and to shock on the other hand (and - PS to any Hollywood director who has not learned this yet: nudity, four-letter-words and sex do not shock anymore; they can, in fact, seem cliché - as they do here). You know, what made some of the movies of the '30s so great was their crackling dialog - fast-paced, ingenious. The slow dialog in this movie produces the opposite effect - dullness. Incredible especially if you realize how many scenes of naked people are in this movie. The lesson here is clear: nudity does not make a movie interesting. A dull story is a dull story, naked people or no. Very ironic: here, one of the most boring movies ever, has perhaps the most nudity and sexual content of any mainstream film of its time. Makes you yearn for a return to the old movie ethic of the '30s. One final question remains unanswered: what about their experience (as real husband and wife) in making this movie caused Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to divorce shortly afterward? I have to feel it had something to do with what went on during the filming of this albatross.