Only Kubrick could make sex boring...

Rating: 1/10 (11 October 2006)

Yeah, yeah, Kubrick's a genius. Or was he? Did he ever innovate anything? Barely if at all. But the guy sure did his homework, which set him light years apart from reliable studio hacks...so compared to a Joel Schumacher, er, maybe Kubrick was a genius. But what the heck's up with his swansong? "Eyes Wide Shut" opened promisingly enough. Medium shot of Nicole Kidman's butt, touchdown. Never considered her a decent actress, never considered her attractive, but always considered her creepy, too bony and not feminine enough. Wowzers, though, what a backyard. If only Kubrick kept the camera rolling on Kidman's spectacular pooper. Oh well.
What Kubrick did film was a mystery. Figuratively speaking. As in, "T'hell's the film ABOUT?" Short answer: It's about three freakin' hours, man. Three freakin' hours.
Conceptually? Fidelity or betrayal or something vague delivered like a melting glacier. Although, coming from the calculating director who upstaged Scatman Carrothers with a can of Calumet baking power in "The Shining," was there something more going on? Did Kubrick intend "Eyes Wide Shut" to be a farce? Tom Cruise and Kidman were their spectacular lightweight selves, emotions ranged from A to B. Stuck out like sore thumbs amidst naturalistic, talented performers. Was that the joke?? Perhaps looking for farce is reaching too far for subtext. But why the heck else would Kubrick cast movie stars in the leads instead of actors?? Don't know about you, but I'm tired of posing questions regarding "Eyes Wide Shut." Art's art and fun's fun but comes a point when something impenetrable becomes a bore. Self-indulgent bore, to boot.
Yes, only Kubrick could make "Eyes Wide Shot." But then, only Kubrick could make sex boring. And I mean boring. Aside from one genuinely creepy scene full of dramatic tension in a costume shop after hours, rest of the film's an unsatisfying snoozebomb.
And the ending? My interpretation (on the basic plot level) differed completely from that of two other people. So three different people viewing at the same time came up with three completely different reasons for the final scene. Testament to a fantastic filmmaker who challenges the imagination? Not as much as a ludicrous narrative that had no place to go logically. Big difference.
Don't get me wrong, Kubrick kicked some out of the park. "Clockwork," "Barry Lyndon" and "2001" showed what he could do on his best day. Unfortunately "Eyes" wasn't one of those days.