Poor Showing for Kubrick (Spoiler)

Rating: 5/10 (24 April 2001)

Had "Eyes Wide Shut" been released as a companion piece to "A Clockwork Orange", Kubrick might have been able to connect with his audience. In the early '70s, a cinematic 'pushing the envelope' was an end in itself; the story vehicle was often secondary. You just had to push. And at that point in time, "Eyes Wide Shut" would have been doing just that, challenging the audience with a new type of film, new ideas. By 2000, "Eyes Wide Shut" is pushing nothing and telling its story poorly. It's a challenge to keep your eyes open.
One problem is that of motivation, both on the character's part and that of the director. For example, why does the Nicole Kidman character confess of an affair she might have had, but didn't? Out of the blue to her stoned husband? The characters just don't act logically. And for Mr. Kubrick, why does he shoot what he does? Why does he think that watching Ms. Kidman wipe herself adds to the story? Weird.
And the story's high point...rich New Yorkers holding super-secret dress-up soirées to screw whores. I don't think so. As a long-term ex-pat in Europe Mr. Kubrick must have gotten confused...and should have set the story in Brussels.
Bottom line: watch "Paths of Glory" for a fifth time instead.