A boring, disappointing finale to a great career.

Rating: 2/10 (27 July 1999)

My sister-in-law rates movies by how many times she looks at her watch. For me "Eyes Wide Shut" was a three-watcher. The movie starts abruptly with a full length shot of Nicole Kidman (Mrs. Tom Cruise) fully undressed--definitely an attention-getter. In fact, the lure of seeing the beautiful Ms. Kidman was a big reason to see the film--and ultimately also a reason not to see it. It's too late to tell Stanley Kubrick (he died earlier this year), but reality doesn't necessarily translate into art. And there is entirely too much reality in this film when it comes to seeing Kidman. We see her using the toilet then wiping herself; later she applies her deodorant and smells her armpits. What is this fascination with bathroom activities? Enough already! THIS IS NOT NECESSARY! THIS IS NOT ENTERTAINING! Additionally, we see Kidman stoned on pot and smoking cigarettes. I know this movie is intended for adult audiences, but many youths will sneak in to see it and her actions are definitely not good role modeling.
Perhaps the movie's greatest fault is that it is boring. Yes, BORING! I never thought a film by Kubrick, director of such classics as "Paths of Glory," "Dr. Strangelove,""A Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining" could make a boring movie. Not only boring but pointless, ponderous, circuitous, confusing, unbelievable and stupid. By now you've guessed I didn't like it.

For years audiences have speculated about the potentially magnificent eroticism of a big-budget Hollywood porno movie with beautiful Oscar-caliber actors. Actors don't get more beautiful and handsome than Kidman and Cruise. And who better to direct such an experiment than Kubrick, whose work on "A Clockwork Orange" was stunning and shocking? Alas, "Eyes" disappoints. No eroticism and very little shock value (especially since the sexual couplings in the big orgy scene were effectively eliminated when Warner Bros. re-edited the film by placing digital actors in front of the live ones).
For the life of me, I can't figure out what the heck Kubrick was doing during the unusually-long two-year shooting schedule with Cruise and Kidman. Was he rehearsing the love scenes as part of a dirty old man's fantasy (his perfectionism is legendary)? Whatever he was doing certainly didn't show up on the screen, produce great acting performances or add to his legacy.

Perhaps the fault lies with the screenplay. It provides no insight into the themes of sexual obsession and jealousy. Much of the dialogue is trite and uninspired ("OK, I'm going to be frank with you"). And the discussions between Cruise and Kidman about the nature of love and relationships fail to surpass the level of profundity found on an above-average television sitcom like "Friends."