Being in old Stanley's brain

Rating: 6/10 (6 April 2001)

Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle` was the model Kubrick based his film upon, and after all those almost perverse details that were heard before Eye Wide Shut` was released, it's amazing how slavishly it sticks to that model. For me, this means nothing good because I was as unsuccessful in finding out what Schnitzler wanted to say as I was with Kubrick. Schnitzler had at least a fine, readable language, which of course gets lost in an English language film.
I saw the film shortly after it was released here, but I remembered it when I saw The Cell` recently. The two movies belong to dissimilar genres and try to meet completely different requirements, but the intensity of their pictures and how they prefer them to everything else, even the story. The director of The Cell` justified himself by a reference to the genre he comes from (videoclips), Stanley Kubrick, being dead, couldn't justify himself any more, and I can't imagine what he would have said, if he was still alive. After his masterpieces Full Metal Jacket`, The Shining` and several others, Eyes Wide Shut` seems like the late work of an unenthusiastic old artist, lacking ideas, full of emotionalism and overwhealming pictures, obsessed with sex, visually and in the dialogues. Also the characters (Tom Cruise giving one of his weak performances and Nicole Kidman who is not more than a supporting actress here) seem to think about nothing else. Being in old Stanley Kubrick's brain.
How badly will he rate this movie, some of you might ask. And here is the surprise: Speaking purely emotionally, remembering the feeling I had during watching the film and immediately afterwards, I must admit that the film was a) not boring and b) absolutely fascinating, and two years later I can't, I just can't tell why. Obviously, there was still something, something not tangible left of Kubrick's genius. However, it's a pity that he's not among us. 6 points out of