What is the matter with you people?

Rating: Null/10 (31 July 1999)

This movie is turgid, boring, pompous and outdated. The film's sensibility is a cross between between Victorian moralizing and '70s-era Freudianism and sexuality. The former is a little simpleminded (not all non-marital sex is "illicit," and not all women are teases, prostitutes, or coffee-fetching secretaries), and the latter is obvious and silly. Nicole saying "f**k" a lot is about as raw and shocking in 1999 as re-reading Erica Jong. The dialogue is frequently laughable (eg, "take off your clothes!" "Take off my clothes?" "Yes, get undressed!"), the score is like a little drill going into one's forehead, and the big dramatic moments are just plain hoaky (omigosh, THE MASK IS ON THE BED!!!). And talking really slowly, as the entire cast does at all times, does automatically make for great acting. Admittedly, there are some nicely composed shots and lovely lighting. And Sidney Lumet gave an OK performance. But I failed to see what this movie had to tell us in the 1990s, let alone what made it even remotely engaging. I am baffled by all the fawning reviews, both in the papers and by IMDb users.
Folks, it's okay not to like a film by Kubrick, even though he's dead. He's rightly viewed as god-like for Lolita, Dr Strangelove, etc, but that didn't give him license to make a grindingly boring, moralizing, unkempt movie like Eyes Wide Shut. I appear to be in the minority on this, so I hope someone can convince me I'm wrong.