# Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

### reviewed by
Jamey Hughton

    EYES WIDE SHUT
    ***1/2 (out of four stars)
    A review by Jamey Hughton

Starring-Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Marie Richardson and Rade Serbedzija Director-Stanley Kubrick Canadian Rating-18A Released by Warner Brothers - 07/99

    MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton
    http://Welcome.to/MovieViews

=93Eyes Wide Shut=94, the final theatrical effort of late visionary direc= tor Stanley Kubrick, transports the viewer through a dark, fascinating tunnel of sexual voyeurism. Like a thought-provoking amusement ride through a towering Gothic cathedral, Kubrick=92s closing bow plumbs the innermost depths of the human conscience. =93Eyes Wide Shut=94 is a rare psychological thriller that had my eyes feverishly affixed to the screen throughout most of the 2 hour, 40 minute running time, all the while pulsating with the type of technical brilliance associated with Kubrick=92s name. Even the most simplistic conversation between character= s is given Grade-A treatment by the director - the lighting, camera movement and background score all helping to sustain the impeccable atmosphere.

To me, that is one of Kubrick=92s most impressive achievements: the ability to create and maintain atmosphere. =93The Shining=94 is a stunnin= g example of his exquisite talent to mesh characters, plot and surroundings into a total cerebral experience. =93Eyes Wide Shut=94 is another one of these dream-like experiences. Upon its initial release, critics and audiences stood at a decidedly mixed consensus. Some more naive viewers, presumably unfamiliar with Kubrick=92s craft and brand of filmmaking, went in anticipating more of a prototypical Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman romance vehicle. In turn, the somber, artsy approach most likely drove them away sickened with humdrum monotony. Others found the experience to be vague and meandering - posing the suggestion that perhaps the concept and material was not worthy of the great director=92s touch. Personally, I will offer high praise for the visually and intellectually consuming =93Eyes Wide Shut=94. It may not warrant a =91Classic Kubrick=92 stamp of approval, but =93EWS=94 is a hau= nting piece of visionary artwork, and certainly a worthy finale in a phenomenal filmmaking saga.

Cruise and Kidman play Bill and Alice Harford, a wealthy New York couple who, at first glance, seem to be at the peak of happiness in their lives. We join Bill and Alice on the Eve of a party they are rushing to attend, hosted by Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack), a long-time friend of the family. We watch curiously as Alice succumbs to the charm of an older businessman, and as the two embrace each other on the dance floor, openly discussing the meaning of marriage and whispering other adulterous notions. Bill, meanwhile, is being tempted by a pair of flirtatious girls who obviously want to lure him into a more private sector of the ongoing party. More than a trifle vague, but interesting. All of this subtle sexual cavorting leads to Alice, who - under the influence of pot - reveals that she once considered an affair with another man. Bill, confused, begins to prowl the moonlit streets to search for some kind of redemption.

These events unspool into a surreal, engrossing exploration of character, and it is here that Kubrick=92s visual genius really tightens its grasp. Bill, a physician, encounters an old doctor-friend turned musician (Todd Field) who reveals the secret of an masked underworld gathering. After a brief stop at costume shop owned by a strange old kook (Rade Serbedzija), Bill makes tracks for the bizarre sex convention hoping to.... well, we don=92t really know. I imagine you=92re all famili= ar with this part. Yes, it=92s the notoriously controversial orgy sequence. To escape the wrath of the dreaded NC-17, Kubrick was forced to trim roughly 1 minute of gratuitous fornication and obscure a number of protrusive body parts using shadows of onlookers (digitally added during post-production). Some critics, like Roger Ebert, were quick to express their disapproval of this MPAA intervention - arguing that Kubrick=92s intended version would never be seen. These critics do make a valid point.

But I want to skip easy jabs at the MPAA and focus on the film as it stands. Two of the most captivating moments in =93Eyes Wide Shut=94 occur=

during simple character interaction. The first is the conversation between Cruise and Field in a darkened bar. Every word, every syllable is emphasized, and the incredible mood projected by such a customary moment is definitive of Kubrick=92s magical ability to enrapture the viewer over his career. The second moment is a chilling conversation between Cruise and the convention leader, which just oozes atmosphere and style, with lucid background music and tantalizing camera angles. Although alone it may resemble a cat walking across a piano, the score is of fundamental support. =93Eyes Wide Shut=94 is almost perfect from a technical standpoint, and you already know what editing factor would make it totally perfect.

No one other than Cruise and Kidman is given enough screen time for register, but playing a pair of well-realized characters, the real-life couple delivers. At times, our emotional link to the Bill character wavers, and Kidman=92s vocal slurs occasionally become grating. =93EWS=94= is also overlong, and some of the dramatic stuffing lacks real substance. What I=92m saying is that =93Eyes Wide Shut=94, written with unstable fluctuation between certain characters and events, is not the classic cinema of =932001: A Space Odyssey=94 or =93A Clockwork Orange=94. But, a= s he places the viewer under his spell from minute one, we realize it may be a long time before the realm of movie-making sees another rare genius like Stanley Kubrick.

    =A9 2000, Jamey Hughton

    MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton
    http://Welcome.to/MovieViews

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews