Dead Film about Death !

Rating: Null/10 (22 December 2008)

This film caused me some confusion as being unidentified. OK, it's a comedy. A real good one about a husband who wants desperately to cheat on his wife in the most inauspicious night in his life! But I always thought that (Tom Cruise) can't do comedy. To tell you the truth, according to its making's circumstances, which ate up 2 years of its leads' ages, then it's a black comedy already! Hmmm, maybe it's a horror, for sure when I review my memory of watching it, I discover how it's a ruthless horror indeed, it even managed to give me nightmares later; and ironically I'm not kidding!
Actually, it could be one of the most anti-western civilization films ever, condemning the killer materialism, and unspiritual thinking, which led the human to immerse into "sex", and get lost through its deepest aberrant ways. (Stanley Kubrick) wanted to make a different satire against the wide eyes shut's belief, disgracing all of his community by the shame of being wildly blind, crazy about coitus with or without love, being bodies that kill each other or themselves for fun; as if humans became the worst animals. The film tried to be an ominous of this civilization's end. And that's great. Yet theoretically. Because Mr. perfectionist-in-a-very-sick-way (Stanley Kubrick)'s ultimate result out of that was something totally uninteresting, and highly disappointing. Humdrum, tasteless, and one of the blandest. The list would go endlessly.
Originally, it's highly thoughtful, but obviously not as great as what it handles. At first, you'd feel how the story was sort of expressing as a simple and symbolic one that could epitomize its cosmos, lampoon it, and insinuate to its death. Though, it sounded eventually forced and spiritless. The long, very long, shots weren't for the sake of scrutiny, inasmuch as the sake of being sleepy or unbearable. The editing transformed the whole matter into one big slow tooth extraction. (Tom Cruise) is the best paradox when it comes to soil the American dream or looking misguided childish, but despite how he tried, he wasn't that important actor to represent any possible depths. Some of the image details looked primitive (the newspaper's title: "How lucky that you're alive" or some things like that!). Everything ranges rather between ambiguous or naive. That dreamlike sense was done so dully. All the mind games that (Kubrick) loves to play, like deliberate image goofs, went to nothing, or maybe they were just goofs after all! Even the piano music, so the classic records, were very monotonous and blank, stealing the movie's spirit. It looked wholly lifeless. I don't think, at any rate, that making a film about dead life must be lifeless.. or deadly!
I believe that there was a certain paranoia or megalomania in (Kubrick) which affected his vision badly, so I'm sure that a poor film like this seemed The Iconic Cinema from his point of view. And it shows. I recall what my friend likened the movie with when we first saw it: "This is not a film, this is a documentary!". I agree with that, as a live painful documentary about how to lose a good idea, torture your cast, and your audience, be absent for years, and waste more years on what's lower than what you already did. And you know what the worst of it is? It feels like a documentary!
(Eyes Wide Shut) ended up having the sad irony of good premise, bad film. It's where the only actual good thing about it, else being creepy, is the moment of (Nicole Kidman) saying the "F" word in the end so tenderly. Although it's a smart, very cynical, ending for such a film about a world that relishes its death, and sees sex as the cure of everything. Nevertheless, it can't save a film that relishes its death, and doesn't "see" in the first place. Sorrowfully, (Kubrick) did it wide eyes shut himself!