Saturday, January 27, 2024

Eyes Wide Shut

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Runtime: A long 159 minutes

Directed by: What a final movie for Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and a bunch of horny characters

From: Warner Bros.

BROKE: Die Hard is a Christmas movie

WOKE: Eyes Wide Shut is a Christmas movie

If I was the type of reviewer that only did two sentence reviews, I'd write no more and receive dozens of likes here on Letterboxd. Yet, I will never be that. Besides wanting to explain for everyone else wondering why I didn't rate the movie 5 stars like many have, it was a request by a mutual here to tackle Eyes Wide Shut. If I had known that there'd be so many Christmas lights present, a holiday viewing would have been a far more logical time. Alas... that has no bearing on my rating anyhow.

As most have tackled this already, a synopsis isn't needed. The couple played by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman realized heartbreak doesn't feel good in a place like late 90's New York City (not always convincingly portrayed on an England sound stage, but that's a minor point) when their marriage has issues and Cruise discovers a bunch of weirdos dressed in cloaks and masks.

The performances are typically top-notch; that includes Kidman's detached acting. I am pretty sure why that was done, along with her frequent nudity. I don't need to dwell too much on the direction, cinematography, the obvious dream-like aesthetic or the excellent score from Jocelyn Pook & the classical music pieces selected. Some scenes I'll never forget, including various moments where I had a hearty laugh. The laughter stopped after the movie made its way to the mansion!

Regrettably, it's the truth that the movie ultimately made me feel detached from it, to the point that at conclusion, what exactly the point of it all was sort of lost on me. I have some sort of idea why there were multiple woman swooning over Cruise's character, and not just because he was played by Tom Cruise. However, why was one of them a “playing under 18” Leelee Sobieski? Why were there some other odd off-putting salacious details? Unlike most of his other movies, diving deep into the swimming pool in an attempt to reason what Kubrick was going for won't be occurring here.

It is unfortunate that I don't love the movie like the mutual who made this request; be that as it may, most agree w/ his high opinion anyhow. It was still a motion picture that I should have given a shot to long ago; it's the final film of a legendary director... I don't love his on-set behavior but most of what I've seen has been rated quite highly. This weird horny tale not fully connecting w/ me—that's alright, I still don't regret getting that request to discuss the movie here. Besides, I can always chortle at the incredibly vulgar (but most assuredly not true; that's the only reason for me to laugh) rumor as to why Harvey Keitel was replaced by Sydney Pollack.

No comments:

Post a Comment