Eyes Wide Shut is exactly what my eyes were half-way through this boring and bad Kubrick film

Rating: 1/10 (19 July 1999)

Eyes Wide Shut is exactly what my eyes were half-way through this boring and bad Kubrick film. Stanley Kubrick himself was a bizarre and eccentric guy, and he tried to serve up a display and or commentary to the darker side of human sexuality -- which probably parallels the director himself(who knows? who cares). The subject matter of this film and the way it was examined misses the mark of good cinema by such a tremendous margin, and I'm sad Kubrick doesn't have a chance to try again now that he's passed on. But then again, I don't care who you are. If it takes you 75 takes on a single set-up during a single scene of filmmaking, then you are not a perfectionist, you are obsessive-compulsive and most likely very insecure. I feel bad for Tom and Nicole having spent a year and a half of their lives committed to this project. What a waste. And it seemed to me that Tom knew this much during his interview on 20/20. While on the subject of Tom and Nicole, their performances(and most of the other actors as well) were the only redeeming factor of this film. Their performances were the only characteristic of this film that kept me in the theater to the end. Otherwise, I would've walked half-way through the second act. Unfortunately, their material was the failure of this film, and, dare I say, the direction.
The boredom that overcomes the viewer in Eyes Wide Shut is so prevalent by the third act, that you are most likely to be removed from any attachment to this film by the time the big orgy scene rolls around. And then it becomes laughable because you have already lost respect for what the movie was trying to convey. And what was the deal with the horrible scoring of this film? That horrendous pounding of the single note from a piano was so disturbing that it removed me from any chance of being able to believe what was in front of me. Audience members in the Los Angeles theater where I watched this movie were laughing every time that damn single piano key was struck. I couldn't believe all the yawning, himming and hawing, and shifting in theater seats going on during this movie. People were looking around and bored senseless. The comments on the long crowded walk out of the theater chimed all the same notes: this just wasn't a good movie -- not even close.
Can Hollywood and the press please not pull another "emperor's new clothes" review on this film like they did with Terrance Malick's pathetic attempt at a war movie "The Thin Red Line"? I know people will be afraid to say Kubrick made a bad film. Let's face it, it's bad. It's easy to say it's a good movie, because it's cool to be a big fan of Stanley Kubrick. So naturally, the reviews are more of a review of the man and possibly out of respect for the fact that he is dead. But you have to call it like it is. This is exactly what Hollywood did for Terrance Malick's last film. Everybody began talking about how great this guy was and citing his last work as an example of his greatness. Gee, I don't remember "Badlands" being on anybody's top twenty list of all-time greatest movies. And suddenly, most of Hollywood is singing praises for the bad director who hasn't made a movie in over twenty years. It's disgusting. And Malick's "Thin Red Line" was much worse than "Eyes Wide Shut". So don't be sucked in by this false hype. Can I recommend you see this film in the theater? No way. On a scale of 1 to 10 -- I give it a 2.