Eyes Wide Shut [Blu-ray]
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 01/29/2008It was inevitable that Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut would be the most misunderstood film of 1999. Kubrick died four months prior to its release, and there was no end to speculation how much he would have tinkered with the picture, changed it, “fixed” it. We’ll never know. But even without the haunting enigma of the director’s death–and its eerie echo/anticipation in the scene when Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) visits the deathbed of one of his patients–Eyes Wide Shut would have perplexed and polarized viewers and reviewers. After all, virtually every movie of Kubrick’s post-U.S. career had; only 1964’s Dr. Strangelove opened to something approaching consensus. Quite apart from the author’s tinkering, Kubrick’s movies themselves always seemed to change–partly because they changed us, changed the world and the ways we experienced and understood it. And we may expect Eyes Wide Shut to do the same. Unlike Kubrick himself, it has time.
So consider, as we settle in to live with this long, advisedly slow, mesmerizing film, how challenging and ambiguous its narrative strategy is. The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or “Dream Story”), and it’s a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords’ bedroom to the backstage replica of New York’s Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife’s teasing confession of fantasized infidelity, and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level–visually, psychologically, logically–every scene shimmers with unreality. Is everything in the movie a dream? And if so, who is dreaming it at any given moment, and why?
Don’t settle for easy answers. Kubrick’s ultimate odyssey beckons. And now the dream is yours. –Richard T. JamesonIt was inevitable that Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut would be the most misunderstood film of 1999. Kubrick died four months prior to its release, and there was no end to speculation how much he would have tinkered with the picture, changed it, “fixed” it. We’ll never know. But even without the haunting enigma of the director’s death–and its eerie echo/anticipation in the scene when Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) visits the deathbed of one of his patients–Eyes Wide Shut would have perplexed and polarized viewers and reviewers. After all, virtually every movie of Kubrick’s post-U.S. career had; only 1964’s Dr. Strangelove opened to something approaching consensus. Quite apart from the author’s tinkering, Kubrick’s movies themselves always seemed to change–partly because they changed us, changed the world and the ways we experienced and understood it. And we may expect Eyes Wide Shut to do the same. Unlike Kubrick himself, it has time.
So consider, as we settle in to live with this long, advisedly slow, mesmerizing film, how challenging and ambiguous its narrative strategy is. The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or “Dream Story”), and it’s a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords’ bedroom to the backstage replica of New York’s Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife’s teasing confession of fantasized infidelity, and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level–visually, psychologically, logically–every scene shimmers with unreality. Is everything in the movie a dream? And if so, who is dreaming it at any given moment, and why?
Don’t settle for easy answers. Kubrick’s ultimate odyssey beckons. And now the dream is yours. –Richard T. Jameson
User Ratings and Reviews
1 Stars I’M A DOCTOR!
Totally agree with another reviewer that said Tom Cruise was miscast as a doctor - totally unbelievable. I thought both he and Nicole Kidman’s acting in this film was laughable. And since when does a doctor go around flipping open his I.D. card like a cop? Over and over again, AND people complying with whatever he wants because “HE’S A DOCTOR!”. And what was the point of Nicole Kidman’s gratitious nudity? - enough already. That and her rant about her doctor husband squeezing patient’s “titties” - just sickening. Maybe this film would have succeded with better acting . . .
1 Stars jazzman
Without a doubt (and sadly), Kubrick’s worst movie ever. It IS beautiful
to look at (one plus), and I am probably the only person who saw this that
actually enjoyed the music, as I am a huge Gyorgy Ligeti fan (the guy who
composed the “annoying” piano music). Don’t know what Stan was thinking
when he made this. So MANY of the scenes and the characters don’t make a
bit of sense (the hooker, her room-mate, the weird guy that owned the
costume shop, his daughter, the two Oriental guys with the daughter, the
married woman Cruise sees after getting the phone call because of a death,
the gang walking down the street at night who literally run into Cruise
and then taunt him, the weird gay hotel clerk (uh, is that you PEE WEE?)
uh - HUH????????) It’s like you’re watching this and thinking, who ARE
all these WEIRD people and is there SOME point to all of this? The orgy
set-up at the mansion was TOTALLY unrealistic - people do not act OR talk
like that in real life - totally pretentious, overly staged, and phoney.
Stan also came across with this film as a pretty dirty old man, with all
of the ridiculous, unnecessary nudity. Did you also notice how virtually
EVERY young female in this film was an absolute BABE? Uh, real life ain’t
like that, boys, sorry. And Dr. Cruise (and his buddies) didn’t come
across here as having a whole lot of character, morals, or even values -
in short, a whole bunch of not very likeable people. I’ll just say I
wouldn’t care to know or associate with ANY of the weirdo’s in this film.
If all this is not bad enough, the movie is horribly paced. Dreadful to
sit through. You just want to turn it off or walk out, as it’s so BORING
and WAY too long. Where was the editor on this film? I did enjoy some
of the music in this, and it was beautifully filmed, but WHAT’S THE POINT?
A sad end to one of the best directors (from a long time ago). Bad, bad
movie.
5 Stars Dazzlingly rich and clever
To enjoy this movie it helps to have an interest in Psychoanalytic concepts: the imperious erotic drive, dreams, fantasy, seduction, guilt, erotic curiosity, the distortion of reality by wish and fear, and the fascinating challenge of figuring out the mystery of what exactly happened to you and why. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this movie. The movie’s title seems to refer to the power of the sensual and visual experiences of your mind’s eyes.
5 Stars Unrated Two-Disc Special Edition
I think the Amazon product picture for this DVD is wrong. The Amazon product page shows exactly the same picture as the United States censored version (Eyes Wide Shut (2-disc Special Edition)). I’ve uploaded images of the DVD box I actually received (click “See customer images”).
1 Stars Tom Cruise did it again - -
- bombed, that is. Oh, as a kid fighter-pilot, semi-terrific. As a lawyer in a uniform, putrid. As a “doctor”? He was unbelievably bad, totally miscast. A fish out of water? No, worse. Much. Like some of those terrible movies we love to hate, I actually watched it again — or, perhaps 17 minutes of it, until I wanted to watch Lassie re-runs or ‘most anything….. so I did, “Inside the NFL” - - - fini.
Filed under: Blue Ray Movie Reviews