Eyes Wide Shut -------------- (warning: contains spoiler) If anyone figures out the point of this film, please let me know! Basically, a young yuppy couple (played by young yuppy couple Cruise and Kidman) smoke too much pot and get paranoid and weirded out. Kidman is bummed that Cruise is not jealous, so she smokes some pot, presses the issue, and tells him some stuff about sex from the past in which she actually didn't do anything. This bums Cruise out, so he takes a journey on the dark side of sex without actually ever doing anything. Shit gets paranoid and intense, then they wake up on Christmas, realize that their fears were totally unfounded, and decide to stop smoking so much pot since their screaming, crying, and whining is getting on the nerves of the audience. They suddenly realize that they have a daughter and must go Christmas shopping in a really bright, noisy, crowded store looking bleary-eyed and unshaven (you should see Nicole's armpits, oy). They decide that this yuppy breeder dream is the way to go, and that they really need to scrog more in order to strengthen the bond. Not up to the usual high Kubrick film caliber in terms of message, pacing, and intensity. Tedious same shot of Nicole and the marine scrogging popping up in Cruise's disturbed, dark and brooding subconscious. Good lighting and sets though. Does contain several interesting and weird peripheral characters which is a staple of the Kubrick film. Contains some hot naked chicks in a semi-satanic ceremony with dark cloaks, masks, and smoking censer. Shit gets trippy in the mansion with the various sex rooms, so probably you should smoke some pot beforehand to get the full effect. All of the chicks in this film are ultra-skinny with fabulous tits; reminiscent of the chick tables in the milk/ nectar bar in A Clockwork Orange. Contains an allusion to necrophilia, without anything actually ever happening. --- To: poetry@ans.net Subject: Re: movie: Eyes Wide Shut (spoiler) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:22:00 -0400 From: "Thomas F. Christie" Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1327 Seriously. The movie was something of a letdown, but I have high expectations of Kubrick. If I saw the same movie on a whim, directed by someone unknown, with unknown actors, I might be really pleased. What was good: The cinematography, as can be expected from kubrick was excellent. The acting wasn't bad. Many many individual scenes were uniquely interesting when taken as seperate from the whole. The portrayal of sexual subject matter, I think, is groundbreaking for American mainstream cinema. Since I don't see that much mainstream cinema, I may be out of touch here, but certainly the sensuality here seems to be closer to what I am used to seeing in foreign and independent film. Perhaps this alone could be kubrick's justification for the film. (?) What was not good: My only but damning criticism is that the overall message of the film is uncertain. It feels like listening to someone who has many thoughts on a topic, but hasn't synthesized them into a clear framework. each thought is interesting, but they don't cohere. The movie is clearly about sex, but what exactly is being said? I don't come away with a new perspective, which leaves me feeling like he had nothing to say. (which isn't neccessarily the only reason for making a film, but one of the main reasons i go to see one)