this movie sticks with you for a while, like a stain you can't quite wash away. the visuals, the soundtrack, the emotions and thoughts that it evokes. it's not easily forgotten, if you truly watch it. it imprints itself on your soul, like any great piece of art that speaks to you. this film is deep. in fact i think there is more below the surface than what is presented to us in this film and that's why most people don't like it or get it. most people don't want to think or feel (esp if the emotions are uncomfortable) they don't want subtlety or ambiguity, they want in your face, instant gratification, entertainment. i think it's a true sign that society has collapsed when the only art it produces is shallow and pointless. we're not quite there yet but seem to be headed in that direction. and not all art, but i think the movie industry at least in this country is a prime example. great review btw
I watched your original review the other day and I was like man she ripped this apart. I'm glad you did this re review because I think this sounds a lot more like one of your well balanced reviews. This is a great film
Good point about comparing/contrasting Lolita and EWS. Crazy to think those two movies, each reflecting a vastly different time period, came from the same person.
There been a lot of stuff written comparing this to Brandon Cronenberg’s Infinity pool. In fact right before I checked what was in my subscription box I was reading something about it. Funny coincidence. I assume you’ll probably do a review for that film so I won’t bother asking if you will. Also, I would like if you did another review for Kubrick’s Lolita really outlining why you think it is so great. I like you old review but I think you’ve become better since at expressing your thoughts. Continue the great work. As well will you ever review the work of John Waters or Russ Meyers?
Some people have suggested that the moment when Alice walks through a doorway at the party (after telling Bill she'll meet him by the drinks or whatever) marks the beginning of the "dream" and that perhaps the dream itself is the concoction of the mind of Alice or Bill or both to hide from themselves that they actually went through with their acts of infidelity at the party.
I totally do not believe Kubrick was involved in taking a moon landing or was victim of foul play. But even more and more as time passes... Kubrick had such big brass ones, to deal with the real lifestyles of the .001%. people would have thought that the most outlandish delusional story, but post Epstein we just get desensitized to it, but ironically it would be vastly harder to film subject matters in the tent pole franchise based modern film industry.
Hi, have you seen To Leslie??? Andrea Riseborough is Oscar nomination is being met with controversy and Kate Winslet is calling it the best performance by a female on screen she has ever seen.
This movie is the “most real” out of all Kubrick’s movies I think. He considered it “his greatest contribution” to cinema and I kinda agree because yeah we can wax philosophical about movies like 2001 and A Clockwork Orange but like you said it says so much about “the human experience”. Just the shot of Tom Cruise’s face as Nicole Kidman has her monologue is some of the most intense movie making I’ve ever seen
I'm so happy you came back to this film. This has been one of my personal all time faves since watching it in the theaters! It always made me sad that people didn't like it...but as you said, this film, like any good dream, needs to be reviewed at different points in one's life. It's both simple AND complex, the mirroring of sex purchased by rich and 'poor' alike...Glad you gave it a more fair shake this time around!
I think when doing this movie Kubrick was drinking alot of Alcohol 🍷. Even at his worst, he's still a great director and the movie was decent but I think he wanted to expose more on secret societies. I don't think the producer or studio allowed him to interpret the movie the way he wanted. The editing of the movie is what made it confusing.
It is a masterpiece. It's purposely lacking eroticism. It's about infidelity, it's about the impracticality of love, the unobtainable nature of love, we want ownership of another person, but free will is there to screw it up. It's about other things as well. I'm a big Kubrick fan - I believe most, if not all, his films are near perfect - yes, even the earlier ones. As a swansong, this film was the perfect pay off. I was always bemused by how almost universally the film was panned. I saw it when it first came out, I loved it. As I grow older, the films grows with me and my interpretation of it shifts - that is the genius of Kubrick - watch his films at 16 or 66 and you get something different from them.
Im so happy that you've done a second review. It was lingering in my mind how you spoke about the movie, it felt weird. Now it's lifted off my shoulders, like a cloud popping :)
In my opinion I believe this is Stanley's Masterpiece. I have seen this movie over 4 times and I always see and am aware of new elements/symbols/interpretations.
Yeah couple years ago when I was depressed I watched it nine times in a row. I am I kind of crazy to believe in some of the conspiracy theories did mr. Kubrick really get killed?
@@damoncurrie7103 Sometimes a party of people in masks, having a bacchanalian orgy, is just a invitation only party, of people having a cape and masquerade, bacchanalian orgy. 🤣
I'm on the 'Masterpiece wagon' since I first saw it in 1999. Some people and reviewers back then expected a sex-thriller in the style of Basic Instinct. It's nothing like that; it's a study of humanity, like every film Kubrick made. Confidence, desire, relationship, marriage. Before I saw it, I used to believe that only two people truly knows what's going on in any relationship or marriage. After EWS I realized that those two people likely have their own individual secrets and desires that their partner knows nothing about.
Hi there, you took a risk here that other youtube reviewers wouldn't do, which is to sort of question yourself or critique a critique that you made, and you brought down your pride for that and that's commendable. Honestly you still made some very great points from your initial review, I would say this is just an extension of that. Great video, always watching out for your next ones 👏🏽
i love how-mid all the rabbit holes at every turn in this film (ahem, Alice)-Kubrick also takes great care in dialoguing with his cinematic heroes, most notably Max Ophuls. of course, that’s a whole set of rabbit holes in itself too! for example, Ophuls also adapted Schnitzler before Kubrick, and the literary undercurrent that runs through all Kubrick’s work is always worth mining for… Gold
Damn, where am I gonna find a woman who is fascinated with "eyes wide shut" ? Life is so unfair, so many people to know and yet so little time. I am absolutely obsessed with that movie plus The Shining and Matrix, to a certain extent even 2011's Melancholia. I was a little child living in a communist country with very few entertainment options and little knowledge about the world. My father worked for the airline company and had the chance to visit the US and brought back "The Shining", I was absolutelly hooked ever since every time I visit that movie new things come to light. In my personal review of "eyes wide shurt" I would say the movie exposes the human condition and life;s lack of meaning. A christian might regard the movie as satanic. But despite the sex scenes"eyes wide Shut" has little to do with sex, or rather just a small part of it is about sensuality in that sense.
A lot of Kubrick's movies are like this. A lot of critics dismissed The Shining and this film as well. Woody Allen said that he dismissed Space Odyssey the first time he saw it.
It's a really, really good film. I've read the book by Arthur Schnitzler which Eyes Wide Shut is based on. It's never actually implied that jealousy is purely what drives the husband to try and cheat, but that this "event", his wife's confession of longing, has appeared and disrupted his seemingly stable and "happy" life. This guy is straight laced to the T., runs his own medical practice, has a beautiful wife and daughter, up-market city apartment, wealthy circle of friends, etc, etc. He's a living candidate for sleepwalking through life, a naive illusion of stability, hence the title, Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick does something crafty here; by cutting to the black and white images of Kidman rolling around in bed with the Naval officer he misleads the audience into thinking that the sexual act, or fantasy of the sexual act, is primarily what's bothering Bill Harford. It's more nuanced than that. In his prologue to Schnitzler's book, the film's screenwriter Frederic Raphael asserts that the "confession" scene in the bedroom is meant to symbolize a therapy session. The wife is like the blubbering patient and the husband the quiet, attentive listener. Only it's turned on it's head. Instead of coming to a breakthrough, her confession instead creates a trauma in the husband's mind. In this instance the therapist is the one who goes a little mad. And before he can heal the mental wound by talking about it with her; the opportunity is interrupted by the maid (in the film by a phone call) ushering the husband to the house of his patient. Henceforth he gets got caught in a kind of loop, where unconsciously, and uncannily; he repeatedly has near-sexual encounters which mirror his wife's fantasy of "the missed opportunity." Apparently this is a very real phenomena that was explored by Sigmund Frued and the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan would later coin 'Repition Compulsion.' And "that which is forgotten tends to be repeated, unconsciously" according to Frued. Equating the couple's dreams and fantasies with waking life as equally important is also typical Freud. Then there's the themes of death and sex which are continually being contrasted with each other throughout the story. Each one is worth of it's own essay. It's all very fascinating, but, to it's own detriment, this film isn't at all accessible to those not familiar with or interested in Psychology, early 20th century psychoanalytical archetypes. Kubrick obviously knew this, so casted Hollywood's sexiest couple and jazzes up the film's promotional material probably in the hopes that it would make the film more approachable for mainstream audiences, especially American audiences. All this stuff happens to be an area I'm interested with so I enjoy the insights into jealousy, dreams, paranoia and 'The Uncanny.' I read that Kubrick discovered Schniztler's books and stage plays in the 60s. He considered his work and to be "genuinely psychologically brilliant." In a letter that Freud personally dedicated to Schnitzler in the 1910s, he wrote: “I have gained the impression that you have learnt through intuition - though actually as a result of sensitive introspection - everything that I have had to unearth by laborious work on other persons (patients)" I have to say, one wonders what they were putting into the water in Vienna a century or so ago to produce those authors with such a capacity to enter into the human soul, and then render it into art like that. Stefan Zweig was another impressive writer from Vienna whom I discovered through Kubrick; in the late 50s Kubrick and Harris made various attempts to adapt Zweig's 'The Burning Secret' to no avail.
I've seen all 13 and this is bar none my favorite from him,I think while not his most important I've always found it to be his most interesting subject matter along with great use of cosmic horror and beautiful cinematography and chilling music,the orgy while the peak I still think the build up and amount of mystery to it is genuinely immersive,I'd say the only flaw with it for me is the ballroom where bills bud trys to tell him too much unnecessary in exposition,but the ending is pretty chilling to make up for it with the implication of the daughter,I think the main morale or theme is the idea of how sexual desire is how we make a lot of our decisions and rarely through a more objective viewpoint,it may be a shallow take but the aesthetic was always a draw for me
I’d argue this is his most important especially after ritualistic pedophilia among the elite has been 100% confirmed by Epstein’s case. This movie was most definitely a warning about very real sex cults that operate in our society and it makes watching this film so chilling.
I don’t think people give Tom Cruise enough credit not just for this movie, but all the movies he chose in the late-90s/early 2000s. He knew what his brand was as a movie star (the cocky guy) and leant that persona to movies like Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia. Compare that to a guy like Will Smith who didn’t want to do Django Unchained because he wasn’t enough of a hero, or was weirded out by the gay stuff in Six Degrees. Compare Cruises career to Smiths now and it shows the importance of taking risks.
EWS is my favorite Christmas move. For context, Die Hard is second. I watch it at minimum once every December. I think it's brilliant and for sure it's my favorite Kubrick film. My only criticism -- and believe me I'm trying to get over it -- is the way Bill and Alice repeat what the person said right before. I've read ideas it adds to the dream state the characters are in, if that's the case. I want to believe that, or anything, so it stops bugging me. I bring this up only so I have something to contribute to these comments, otherwise I'd just be saying I love it! 😁
Eyes Wide Shut is an extraordinary film. 2001 and Barry Lyndon are Kubrick’s masterpieces, but Eyes Wide Shut gets pretty close to that level. It’s an easy top 4 Kubrick for me.
Unpopular opinion his best film was Barry Lyndon. Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s most meta film. I enjoy your perspective here I see at least 4 themes running through it. Love & commitment, Good and Evil, Friendship and Enemies, Deception and Temptation. I think if Kubrick had lived a bit longer there wold have been some changes to the Final Cut, alas we’ll never know. I think the sexless vibe of the erotic scenes is intentional. Showing how when we are drawn by our imagination and desire how the reality never quite lives up to our fantasy. I think theres a secret narrative as well I won’t post it here. Kubrick’s a master architect and his films have hidden rooms.
I love Kubrick, he has always been my favorite director, and this was a film that initially underwhelmed me upon first viewing, but has grown in stature each time I see it again. I still would not put it up at the top of the list along with the Shining or 2001, but it is still a very good, very complex, fairly psychologically disturbing film that needs mooltipule views before even a seasoned Kubrick fan can truly appreciate, IMO... :=8)
Thank you for revisiting Eyes Wide Shut. This past December, I watched this at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago as part of their twisted/alternate Christmas series. The film received a standing ovation.
I likes the film but it's far from Kubrick's best. I've heard the scenes at the masque party were censored after Kubrick's death by creating figures to stand in front of people doing sex acts. I know Kubrick lived in the UK and filmed there due to fear of flying or whatever but this was the first film that I could see it since I have lived in NYC. Full Metal Jacket fooled me but not this one.
Well this was a pleasant surprise, glad you reevaluated this. I definitely think it's one of Kubrick's most interesting and according to his family it was his favorite of his films. It almost has a bit of a Lynchian feel to me
What’s the evidence for his claim it was his favourite? Interesting aside when James Cameron went to Kubricks house, he thought they’d be discussing Stanley’s work instead Kubrick wanted to know how various elements of True Lies was accomplished. He thought it was Cameron’s best film.
@@cannibalholocaust3015 His daughter Katharina has stated it many times, including in some reddit AMAs. She also says it at the end of this video here th-cam.com/video/yVcTi5d2OHY/w-d-xo.html I'm pretty sure his assistant Jan Harlan also says it at the end of that video. I've also heard his wife Christiane say it but I can't remember at the moment where I heard it.
A great great movie. Do believe, however, that Stanley Kubrick died before one or two final edits. I know this has been denied, but it's not quite finished to his standards. IMHO
You have to know Kubrick was married for close to 40 years in England missing New York. This is is very personal for his last film. You have to experience love and life before you can appreciate it
I watch this movie every Christmas. The first time I watched it was around Oct/Nov during freshman year at college and I fell asleep the first few times. Then I watched it -- and was hooked. It's awesome to watch in a hazy state. I love how you say -- you notice different things every time you watch it. It's so true. This year I was focused so much on the aspect ratio. One version of the DVD I have it's the full frame aspect ratio. I'm always puzzled by the set manipulation too. We see the same exterior set, but mixed around to make different street facades. I try to focus in on this when I watch the film now, but I can't wrap my head around it. I love this movie so much. Thanks for another stellar review.
With the popularity of the Mission Impossible films and Top Gun Maverick it's easy to forget what an acclaimed dramatic actor Tom Cruise is, especially from thr late 80s all the way through the 90s he worked with a lot of fantastic directors
As a Kubrick fanatic, I couldn't wait for Eyes Wide Shut to hit theaters. My first theatrical Kubrick experience was in '87 when Full Metal Jacket was released. So, when Eyes came out so much exitement had been built up, that when I finally saw it, my initial reaction was, "That's it?" It felt like it was an hour long and I kept thinking there was going to be a huge scene at the end. Well, after I got some distance from it, I watched it with fresh eyes and it slowly unfolded its secrets, and yes, I was able to realize what the huge scene really was. I ended up loving the ending, even if it initially felt like a fairly shallow epilogue tacked onto the end.
Yeah, I became a Kubrick fan at age 11 in 1969 when I saw 2001, and eventually went to film school. Upon "The Shining", I became increasingly disappointed with each successive release of his latest films, and EWS topped it off. It really seemed like a let down the first time I saw it. After rewatching it on DVD I realized there was much more to it than I could absorb on the first viewing. After a couple more views I have developed a much greater appreciation for it. Because it deals with very common human issues, I find it to be his most relatable movie, and thus am more able to appreciate it. It requires honesty from the viewer, not simply attention. One cannot judge it without judging oneself first.
I'm the mid 2000s my dad went through a midlife/existential crisis and started watching all kinds of artsy films. one time I went downstairs and he was watching eyes wide shut. I was probably 14. It was the first erotic drama I'd ever watched. It isn't his masterpiece but it's a pretty solid film IMO.
Saw this on Christmas at the Metrograph in Chinatown. Everyone was dying of laughter every time Tom Cruise opened his mouth. It was fun. Also, on the topic of mirroring. After the orgy, Tom revisits every place he went before, in reverse order, until he ends back up at Sydney Pollack's house.
So cool to hear how much your opinion of this film has changed over the years, I'm sure a lot of people can relate to that. I've recently posted a Stanley Kubrick series so I'm fascinated to see what other people think about this crazy film haha! The initial watch is DEFINITELY easy to go over someone's head. As much as I loved the film I can completely see how simple this film can seem on the surface, especially given all its hype. Loved how you talked about the different themes of the film, like you said the theme of general mistrust is a great way to categorise it. Really thought-through and interesting video you've put together here, was an insightful watch ☺
Nice re-evaluation, Maggie. This review is a fine example of how a review is never the final word but rather the beginning of a longer conversation. As for the film, I haven't seen it in years, but I liked it a lot. I don't consider it in the top echelon of Kubrick's filmography, but it's still pretty good, from what I remember.
Oh yeah this is a muuuch better review than the first one. I like your decision to keep both up, to show how your perspective evolved over time as you watched it more
The one thing that resonates with me from Eyes Wide Shut, is the many, many bullets I have dodged in my life, an almost prophetic reasoning reality would intrude into my life and save me from myself.
IMO it's a film that I'm always hesitant to speak too strongly on, whether in the positive or negative, simply because Kubrick hadn't finished the post-production by the time he died. He's infamous for taking YEARS on post-production, and his final vision could have been edited into something much different than what we eventually received. We'll never know for sure.
You forgot a very important element in the film: sex is an exchange in power just as different classes are an exchange in power. In the scenes where Tom Cruise is in the cab, at the costume shop, or at the prostitute's apartment the film is shot using a hand held 8mm camera that is grainy and jittery. In the scenes at Tom Cruise's apartment, medical office, or in stores it is shot in a more stationary 35mm camera. At places like the party at the beginning of the movie or the sex orgy at the climax of the movie it is shot in 70mm film. In 8mm film, Tom Cruise is in power and in charge over the people he interacts with. In 35mm film there is a power exchange where he is equals to everyone he interacts with. In 70mm film, he is both subordinate and out of place with people he interacts with. All three film types, the sexual exchanges are different. In 8mm film Tom Cruise is in control and people want to engage in sex with him. In 35mm film there is conflict and compromise between Tom Cruise and his wife. In 70mm film there is only sexual fantasy that is never obtainable. I love how Stanley Kubrick uses this simple camera trick to change the dynamics of power throughout the whole film.
I saw it the day it opened, packed theater, and all through the orgy segment everyone was roaring with laughter. After all the hyped build up. I think we saw the original longer undigitized version. They never should have touched it, just to get a R rating. Warner Brothers Suit Dicks ruined it.
One of my all time favourite Kubrick films and highly misunderstood by his fans. I don’t know if l personally lean towards the “masterpiece” side of the group but definitely NOT towards the ones who claim that is one of Kubrick’s worst work. IMHO it’s one of his best films, just not up there with Clockwork Orange, 2001 and The Shining.
For me the evidence that the film is a dream is through the newspaper article about the dead hooker -- freeze frame it and you'll discover duplicate paragraphs and broken sentences, something Kubrick would never have done by accident -- he shows the article twice in the film.
An excellent encapsulation of the movie. I watched this video of yours previously and I rewatched the film again this evening. It is endlessly, endlessly fascinating, like taking a trip down an adult rabbit hole through a looking glass darkly. It isn't a perfect film and I question some of Kubrik's direction, shot choices and casting but I forgive it for all of that, because of its boldness, starkness and absolutely riveting, mesmerising, almost expressionist acting at times, when the script must have been an unbelievable challenge for the likes of Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise and others to make credible. I don't think it is a masterpiece and I do find it drags a little at times but I wouldn't have it cut down by one frame. It's a shame that there isn't more male open nudity in the film to gender balance the sect gathering but I guess that was just the sign of the no show times! I would love to see something like this done in a similar vein from the female (director) perspective some day. That would be interesting. Hmmmm... Nicole Kidman's character is called Alice; curiouser and curiouser!
To interpret the movie in broad strokes, I think it's about how sexuality is a feature of public life that everybody participates in, but it's hidden. The "dream" in "Dream Story" refers to this, but it's unclear if the dream is the hidden and sexual dimension of our society or if it's the publicly visible life we lead outside of the bedroom. This is why the opening party scene can be contrasted with the orgy scene. The latter is simply the same scene except sexuality is made explicit whereas it was implicit or hidden in the party scene. The orgy scene reveals what is going on under the surface in the party scene. It is unseen because it is disguised, which also speaks to the significance of the literal masks they they wear. The question is which is the real us and which is the disguised or masked version of ourselves. There's a little known detail at the end which I think speaks to this. In the final scene, you see a prominently featured board game in the toy store called "Magic Circle." So far as I can tell, there was no real board game with that name, but the term "magic circle" refers to Johan Huizinga's theory of games or play. Inside a game, according to Huizinga, we create an alternate social reality, or what Huizinga's students call the "magic circle," that is limited and conditioned by the game's rules and objectives, a reality that exists only inside the circle, but once the game is finished, we're returned to the rules and objectives of reality (sort of like waking from a dream), and this analysis tempts us to ask how "real" the non-game reality is, or if it isn't just another game that we confused with reality. What we take to be social norms, institutions, legal systems, and all the other features of actually existing social and political reality, of course, are to some degree socially constructed, invented just like the rules which determine our relationship to one another in any game inside a magic circle, so somebody can argue that they are games themselves, or just another "magic circle." You can argue that monogamous marriage, like seduction, is such a magic circle, a game. At any rate, I didn't care for this movie when it was first released, but having seen it countless times by now and interpreted it backward and forward, I'd easily put it in my top 3 Kubrick films and somewhere in my top 10 films of that decade.
I love Kubrick, and I love this movie. I find myself putting this and The Shining on just randomly when I want to have something on and not necessarily pay attention.
Let me preface my opinions on not liking this movie with that I'm a huge cubic fan Barry Lyndon is probably my all time favorite movie ever and the shining is excellent and 2001 goes without mentioning but I believe Kubrick blew it in this movie I think it was a huge mistake I think it was a Caspar I cruise who's just vapor anyway and Nicole Kidman was horrible in the movie the same when she was supposed to be a smoke pot and she was like in her underwear and laughing giggling it was terrible I thought it was embarrassing I think I missed adapting the material to modern times
I wrestle with this movie. I was a film student and loved Kubrick so my intent is not to disparage him but I think he is the most obvious example "the halo effect"., yes he was a genius filmmaker but let's not forget he was a still photographer at first and a lot of people argue he "continued to be" with his endless take's and wide angle natural light style. People play a game of "where waldo" with is film's like he was planting clues, but who know's if that was his intent at all, I think he spent a tremendous amount of effort on creating an "environment" a real place. (like Ridley Scott did with ALIEN, creating a real spaceship for the camera operator to "find shots in". Going with the still photography idea....I think of his film's like paintings and people read into them creating more than 80% of the implied "content" At first I thought Eye's Wide Shut was about a man not able to buy his way to the truth even though having a tremendous amount of resources., nope. Then I thought it was about "going too far", nope. I think Kubrick was a genius but I also think a lot of people talk about Kubrick and if a genius makes something , it MUST be good, or there MUST be hidden messages. But if Eye Wide Shut was made by James Cameron , would we still be spotting hidden illuminati symbolism and so on?. I still don't know.
Didn't they give their daughter away to a couple of men in the final scene? Which makes them free to explore their suppressed voyeurism unencumbered by parental responsibilities.
I think the film is a dream and there are many indicators in the film that tell you that. I see a similar vibe to Mulholland Drive, which I think is also a dream.
I read that Kubrick thought that it was his finest film. I also like the fact that Barry Lyndon has also been the object of increased appreciation over the years. I really loved it and was impressed by many aspects of the film and not just the remarkable photography.
It's true that often our mood or frame of mind on any given day can change how we view a film. But at the same time, in the same way we feel when we meet a new person our instinctive reaction is an important factor. EWS is a very dull film for such an exciting stimulating subject. Yes, we can all revisit it, and maybe through familiarity build some affection for it - but ultimately it is a relationship that is strained from the beginning. Cruise and Kidman are a huge part of why it doesn't work. In retrospect that's probably because they never had any believable chemistry as a couple in the first place. What we see on screen was an echo of real life. The couple in EWS should never have been married, and it appears the same could be said of Cruise and Kidman. They both lacked the necessary spark and crackle that would drive this particular story and I feel it would have been a completely different film if the casting had chosen more suitable leads. Kubrick f***ed up on this one. He's allowed to though, because he's the GOAT. Enough said.
Have you seen the original adaptation starring a certain Peeping Tom? th-cam.com/video/d172U5tmTwQ/w-d-xo.html I see this film as Kubrick's long delayed reaction to Blow Up. The idea of perception vs reality is a dominant theme in this film. This film is similar to Hitchcock's Family plot. In that it was his last film and there was something off about it. Like Family Plot,it was a good film yet not one of his best. The cameraman being seen in the bathroom in the early part of the film was an editing error of the highest order. Kubrick was so OCD it is shocking how he left that in. In addition,he did a gazillion takes so one would think a better take existed.
I saw an early print of the film which had some sound and editing issues as well as shots where you could see reflections of the crew (bathroom scene at the party). These issues were shocking to me as I was aware of Kubrick's famous attention to detail especially for screenings of his work. As Kubrick had just died, it felt like the studio had forsaken his memory by allowing a flawed print out into the wild. This colored my original perception of the film and it took me a long time to warm up to it.
I hated it the 1st time I saw it, and the scene where they smoked weed Nicole's acting was horrible, but as an adult & watching for the subtext it was much more interesting. Particularly if you are familiar with MK ultra processes, plus Nicole's real background as a child in Australia it becomes much deaper.
I didn’t care for it as much until I saw his wife’s interview of it and how her discussion about it with him went. It’s meant to explore the knowledge Women have that men don’t have, watching it in that light is opens it up a lot.
I find both of your reviews to be perfectly valid as analyses of how you received the film at the respective times. There is definitely an intended dreamlike visual interpretation of ideas informed by the source material that translates into the positive qualities you speak of here. In spite of all that, I still cannot get past something I'll sum up in one word: Hokey.
While Kubrick was an amazingly gifted film-maker, I also get the sense that, like many artists, he was not the deep thinker that people want to make him out to be.
I saw this in theaters and was just obsessed with the sheer imagery of the film. Hard to believe given how much galactic talent there was in theaters that year, but today it's a sledgehammer of craftsmanship compared to what's out and about. I didn't think about the subtext until later. Alex Cox referred to this as a "rake's progress" story so I think of the story as a man's descent into the depravity of others once he realizes that he his wife has more than what he saw before. But being naive and new to it, he bungles his way through and it almost gets him killed and he learns the danger of exploring those undercurrents that the people around him have just given in to. So it's hard for me to analyze the subtext of the film that everybody else seems to say because it feels too Easter Egg-y for me and I think Kubrick would find that cheap and insincere. I agree with what Jack Nicholson said about Kubrick's films: "they are completely conscious" so for me, reading things on the subconscious level is far too much like navel-gazing instead of seeing what's been presented honestly but perhaps subtly.
Are these the last 24 minutes of eyes wide shut perhaps. The toy store scene is not the end of the movie. They buy a teddy bear for their daughter. Tom notices the two men watching them. They smie at him and he smiles back. Next scene, they exit the store and Kidman takes the daughter into a limo with the two old men. Tom is confused, Kidmantas him not to worry or he'll scare their daughter, She tells him not to ask questions and coaxes him to get Inside of the limo. They drive to the manor in Long Taland in silence while the daughter is finishing coloring a rainbow inside of a coloring book. A guard greets the two man and the two men exit with Kidman and her daughter. The guard tells Tom to wait in the car. Tom watches them all go inside. He asks the driver what's going on and the driver doesn't answer. Tom keeps looking at the manor door. Eventually Tum exits the car and goes inside the manor. It's empty. He runs around looking for his family. He hears voices coming from inside of a room. He opens the door and hears his wife saying "now sucker a lllipop" His wife and daughter are naked in bed with the two men, who are wearing mesks. They're all wrapped in a bed sheet so it's only implied nudity. Two quards wearing masks-enter and restrain Tom. He struggles and ane of them punches him in the stomach. He collapses on the floor and starts crying. The two old men ask him "what's the meter, as if they are confused. Kidman sells them "he doesn't know. After a moment of silence one of the men simply says, "you've cost us a life. It must be replaced." His daughter begins to cry and Kidman comforts her. Then she walks over to Tom and comforts him, saying something along the lines of "they're not going to keep her, it's just every now and then. Then she assures him that they won't harm her or the two of them. She says "you're one of us now. As he is coming to terms with it, she puts a mask on him and then she starts disrobing him as the guards let go of him. Before I get into the last scene, let me tell you what was explained to me about what I just told you. What was explained to me is that this is Tom and his daughter's initiation ritual into the society. The reason he never has sex in the movie after the party is because it's a part of the ritual. They are watching him, paving people off, and keeping him celibate for the initiation. Two other things. The toy store scene is about Kidman selling their daughter to the society. The two men are there to look at "toys." The end of the rainbow is about Tom finding out the dark truth about what the elites are doing, which will occur through Tom having sex. The last time we see it is before they go inside the manor. The last scene. The last scene is one continuous steady-cam shot following 2legler. It begins on a painting of a baby, as Ziegler is getting dressed and then walking into a party that's going on at his house. The shot follows him through the party and during it we see Kidman surrounded by a group of men and laughing. Lots of pictures and symbols of "elitists" are seen in the background during this sequence. What can also be seen are pictures that allude to Kubrick's previous works; pictures of Ziegler with generals, astronauts, and either Jack Nicholson himself or a man that's supposed to be him. This was apparently Kubrick outing all of the people involved as well as saying his goodbye to cinema It ends with us seeing Tom off in the distance of the shot. He is standing by himself, eway from other partygoers and staring off into the distance in a zombie-like fashion, as if disillusioned by everything. He's on the outdoor balcony. He casually jumps over the ralling as no one even notices and the movie cuts to black. Kubrick has left the building. Kubrick said the movie was simply about how the people who run the world are rich banking families who are profoundly evil. They are pedophiles and are holding women as sex slaves, while murdering anyone who challenges them. And no one is talking about it. That's it. There is no underlying theme about the need for intimacy. The only underlying theme is about how naive everyone is to what's really going on. From what I was told this isn't even a real secret to people who worked in the industry at the time. Over 7 hours of flim did not make it into the final cut. The argument over final cut was over defamation and explicitness. One of the names in the movie sounded like someone powerful apparently and they wanted Stanley to cut it. Supposedly he didn't. A lot of people think as the guy at the beginning named Sandor. There was a gray area over how much power Stanley's director's cut had over the run time. The studio could not change the content of the film, but they were allowed to cut it off before it ran over two hours and forty minutes. The reason they cut down the film is because they thought the pedophile angle would piss people off and ruin Tom and Nicole's career. Supposedly it had nothing to do with illuminati button pushers stopping what was being said. It was more of an appearance thing. But again, this is Just the Hollywood insider story about why they cut the film's ending. It's not the insider insider's story, if you get my drift. Keep in mind that they told Stanley to cut the ending and he didn't want to do it. There is a strong chance he was waiting for them to cave and then he died and they cut the ending without him being around to agree to it. My belief is that if he had lived and he knew they were threatening to cut the ending to fit the run time, he would've probably recut it so that he didn't go over the run time and audiences got to see the ending. If you work in the industry and want to hear this from a direct source, my advice is to find someone who worked in post or as a studio rep or exec during that period. Those people are the ones who see the first cuts. You might get lucky.
There is no evidence for ANY of this. You have to believe his family is in on all of this too. These “deleted” scenes are so Un-Kubrick like and would make this movie comically bad. Show some respect to the filmmaker
Nice review! Im glad you gave it another go , i remember seeing it when it came out and was very underwhelmed but when i was watching it years later, after going through some bad breakups and whatnot i was like OhhHHH ok i get it lol
I think the phrase "Eyes Wide Shut" speaks to a lot of us who were blinded by normalcy bias or political correctness or whatever you want to call it during the Obama years. Eyes Wide Shut could be retitled Eye Told You So.
Stoked to see this review, because I need to revisit the film. I actually loved it on the first watch, but there’s nothing like rewatching a Kubrick film!
this movie sticks with you for a while, like a stain you can't quite wash away. the visuals, the soundtrack, the emotions and thoughts that it evokes. it's not easily forgotten, if you truly watch it. it imprints itself on your soul, like any great piece of art that speaks to you. this film is deep. in fact i think there is more below the surface than what is presented to us in this film and that's why most people don't like it or get it. most people don't want to think or feel (esp if the emotions are uncomfortable) they don't want subtlety or ambiguity, they want in your face, instant gratification, entertainment. i think it's a true sign that society has collapsed when the only art it produces is shallow and pointless. we're not quite there yet but seem to be headed in that direction. and not all art, but i think the movie industry at least in this country is a prime example. great review btw
I watched your original review the other day and I was like man she ripped this apart. I'm glad you did this re review because I think this sounds a lot more like one of your well balanced reviews. This is a great film
Good point about comparing/contrasting Lolita and EWS. Crazy to think those two movies, each reflecting a vastly different time period, came from the same person.
Kubrick's movies are ALL important.
Any plans to review two "unofficial" Kubrick films: "A.I": (started by Kubrick, finished by Spielberg) or "Zardoz" ( uncredited technical advisor)?
There been a lot of stuff written comparing this to Brandon Cronenberg’s Infinity pool. In fact right before I checked what was in my subscription box I was reading something about it. Funny coincidence. I assume you’ll probably do a review for that film so I won’t bother asking if you will. Also, I would like if you did another review for Kubrick’s Lolita really outlining why you think it is so great. I like you old review but I think you’ve become better since at expressing your thoughts. Continue the great work. As well will you ever review the work of John Waters or Russ Meyers?
so glad people make recent videos about this film, we gotta keep doing so. the multiple messages/meaning of the film still persist in todays society.
Great review!
I've always thought it was, among other things, a comment on Cruise's Sex Symbol image at the time. Every single character reacts to him sexually.
Great observation
Some people have suggested that the moment when Alice walks through a doorway at the party (after telling Bill she'll meet him by the drinks or whatever) marks the beginning of the "dream" and that perhaps the dream itself is the concoction of the mind of Alice or Bill or both to hide from themselves that they actually went through with their acts of infidelity at the party.
That shirt is so cool!
I totally do not believe Kubrick was involved in taking a moon landing or was victim of foul play. But even more and more as time passes... Kubrick had such big brass ones, to deal with the real lifestyles of the .001%. people would have thought that the most outlandish delusional story, but post Epstein we just get desensitized to it, but ironically it would be vastly harder to film subject matters in the tent pole franchise based modern film industry.
Hi, have you seen To Leslie??? Andrea Riseborough is Oscar nomination is being met with controversy and Kate Winslet is calling it the best performance by a female on screen she has ever seen.
Watch the Turkish and Brazilian star wars movies 😎
What's a nice girl like you, reviewing a movie like this?
This movie is the “most real” out of all Kubrick’s movies I think. He considered it “his greatest contribution” to cinema and I kinda agree because yeah we can wax philosophical about movies like 2001 and A Clockwork Orange but like you said it says so much about “the human experience”.
Just the shot of Tom Cruise’s face as Nicole Kidman has her monologue is some of the most intense movie making I’ve ever seen
I'm so happy you came back to this film. This has been one of my personal all time faves since watching it in the theaters! It always made me sad that people didn't like it...but as you said, this film, like any good dream, needs to be reviewed at different points in one's life. It's both simple AND complex, the mirroring of sex purchased by rich and 'poor' alike...Glad you gave it a more fair shake this time around!
Eyes Wide Shut is a movie that requires Many viewings to grasp it. Every time I watch it I see it differently.
I think when doing this movie Kubrick was drinking alot of Alcohol 🍷. Even at his worst, he's still a great director and the movie was decent but I think he wanted to expose more on secret societies. I don't think the producer or studio allowed him to interpret the movie the way he wanted. The editing of the movie is what made it confusing.
@@theowlman7091 "I don't think the producer or studio allowed him to interpret the movie the way he wanted" Kubrick was an independent filmmaker.
It is a masterpiece. It's purposely lacking eroticism. It's about infidelity, it's about the impracticality of love, the unobtainable nature of love, we want ownership of another person, but free will is there to screw it up. It's about other things as well. I'm a big Kubrick fan - I believe most, if not all, his films are near perfect - yes, even the earlier ones. As a swansong, this film was the perfect pay off. I was always bemused by how almost universally the film was panned. I saw it when it first came out, I loved it. As I grow older, the films grows with me and my interpretation of it shifts - that is the genius of Kubrick - watch his films at 16 or 66 and you get something different from them.
Brilliant James 🙏
Im so happy that you've done a second review. It was lingering in my mind how you spoke about the movie, it felt weird. Now it's lifted off my shoulders, like a cloud popping :)
In my opinion I believe this is Stanley's Masterpiece. I have seen this movie over 4 times and I always see and am aware of new elements/symbols/interpretations.
I watched it once and thought it was his most interesting work by far, out of an already amazing filmography.
Over 4 times? Like 5?
Yeah couple years ago when I was depressed I watched it nine times in a row.
I am I kind of crazy to believe in some of the conspiracy theories did mr. Kubrick really get killed?
@@damoncurrie7103 i dont know about that, but at least ur skeptical. Some ppl online outright believe he was killed.
@@damoncurrie7103
Sometimes a party of people in masks, having a bacchanalian orgy, is just a invitation only party, of people having a cape and masquerade, bacchanalian orgy. 🤣
I'm on the 'Masterpiece wagon' since I first saw it in 1999. Some people and reviewers back then expected a sex-thriller in the style of Basic Instinct. It's nothing like that; it's a study of humanity, like every film Kubrick made. Confidence, desire, relationship, marriage. Before I saw it, I used to believe that only two people truly knows what's going on in any relationship or marriage. After EWS I realized that those two people likely have their own individual secrets and desires that their partner knows nothing about.
Hi there, you took a risk here that other youtube reviewers wouldn't do, which is to sort of question yourself or critique a critique that you made, and you brought down your pride for that and that's commendable. Honestly you still made some very great points from your initial review, I would say this is just an extension of that. Great video, always watching out for your next ones 👏🏽
i love how-mid all the rabbit holes at every turn in this film (ahem, Alice)-Kubrick also takes great care in dialoguing with his cinematic heroes, most notably Max Ophuls. of course, that’s a whole set of rabbit holes in itself too! for example, Ophuls also adapted Schnitzler before Kubrick, and the literary undercurrent that runs through all Kubrick’s work is always worth mining for… Gold
Damn, where am I gonna find a woman who is fascinated with "eyes wide shut" ? Life is so unfair, so many people to know and yet so little time.
I am absolutely obsessed with that movie plus The Shining and Matrix, to a certain extent even 2011's Melancholia.
I was a little child living in a communist country with very few entertainment options and little knowledge about the world. My father worked for the airline company and had the chance to visit the US and brought back "The Shining", I was absolutelly hooked ever since every time I visit that movie new things come to light.
In my personal review of "eyes wide shurt" I would say the movie exposes the human condition and life;s lack of meaning. A christian might regard the movie as satanic.
But despite the sex scenes"eyes wide Shut" has little to do with sex, or rather just a small part of it is about sensuality in that sense.
A lot of Kubrick's movies are like this. A lot of critics dismissed The Shining and this film as well. Woody Allen said that he dismissed Space Odyssey the first time he saw it.
It's a really, really good film. I've read the book by Arthur Schnitzler which Eyes Wide Shut is based on. It's never actually implied that jealousy is purely what drives the husband to try and cheat, but that this "event", his wife's confession of longing, has appeared and disrupted his seemingly stable and "happy" life. This guy is straight laced to the T., runs his own medical practice, has a beautiful wife and daughter, up-market city apartment, wealthy circle of friends, etc, etc. He's a living candidate for sleepwalking through life, a naive illusion of stability, hence the title, Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick does something crafty here; by cutting to the black and white images of Kidman rolling around in bed with the Naval officer he misleads the audience into thinking that the sexual act, or fantasy of the sexual act, is primarily what's bothering Bill Harford. It's more nuanced than that.
In his prologue to Schnitzler's book, the film's screenwriter Frederic Raphael asserts that the "confession" scene in the bedroom is meant to symbolize a therapy session. The wife is like the blubbering patient and the husband the quiet, attentive listener. Only it's turned on it's head. Instead of coming to a breakthrough, her confession instead creates a trauma in the husband's mind. In this instance the therapist is the one who goes a little mad. And before he can heal the mental wound by talking about it with her; the opportunity is interrupted by the maid (in the film by a phone call) ushering the husband to the house of his patient. Henceforth he gets got caught in a kind of loop, where unconsciously, and uncannily; he repeatedly has near-sexual encounters which mirror his wife's fantasy of "the missed opportunity." Apparently this is a very real phenomena that was explored by Sigmund Frued and the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan would later coin 'Repition Compulsion.' And "that which is forgotten tends to be repeated, unconsciously" according to Frued.
Equating the couple's dreams and fantasies with waking life as equally important is also typical Freud. Then there's the themes of death and sex which are continually being contrasted with each other throughout the story. Each one is worth of it's own essay. It's all very fascinating, but, to it's own detriment, this film isn't at all accessible to those not familiar with or interested in Psychology, early 20th century psychoanalytical archetypes. Kubrick obviously knew this, so casted Hollywood's sexiest couple and jazzes up the film's promotional material probably in the hopes that it would make the film more approachable for mainstream audiences, especially American audiences. All this stuff happens to be an area I'm interested with so I enjoy the insights into jealousy, dreams, paranoia and 'The Uncanny.'
I read that Kubrick discovered Schniztler's books and stage plays in the 60s. He considered his work and to be "genuinely psychologically brilliant." In a letter that Freud personally dedicated to Schnitzler in the 1910s, he wrote: “I have gained the impression that you have learnt through intuition - though actually as a result of sensitive introspection - everything that I have had to unearth by laborious work on other persons (patients)"
I have to say, one wonders what they were putting into the water in Vienna a century or so ago to produce those authors with such a capacity to enter into the human soul, and then render it into art like that. Stefan Zweig was another impressive writer from Vienna whom I discovered through Kubrick; in the late 50s Kubrick and Harris made various attempts to adapt Zweig's 'The Burning Secret' to no avail.
eyes wide shut is very solid and getting better with age ... when seen in the arc of his oeuvre and themes, makes a lot of sense.
Nicole Kidman's character is already in the cult that's why there's so much tension.
I've seen all 13 and this is bar none my favorite from him,I think while not his most important I've always found it to be his most interesting subject matter along with great use of cosmic horror and beautiful cinematography and chilling music,the orgy while the peak I still think the build up and amount of mystery to it is genuinely immersive,I'd say the only flaw with it for me is the ballroom where bills bud trys to tell him too much unnecessary in exposition,but the ending is pretty chilling to make up for it with the implication of the daughter,I think the main morale or theme is the idea of how sexual desire is how we make a lot of our decisions and rarely through a more objective viewpoint,it may be a shallow take but the aesthetic was always a draw for me
I’d argue this is his most important especially after ritualistic pedophilia among the elite has been 100% confirmed by Epstein’s case. This movie was most definitely a warning about very real sex cults that operate in our society and it makes watching this film so chilling.
I don’t think people give Tom Cruise enough credit not just for this movie, but all the movies he chose in the late-90s/early 2000s. He knew what his brand was as a movie star (the cocky guy) and leant that persona to movies like Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia.
Compare that to a guy like Will Smith who didn’t want to do Django Unchained because he wasn’t enough of a hero, or was weirded out by the gay stuff in Six Degrees.
Compare Cruises career to Smiths now and it shows the importance of taking risks.
EWS is my favorite Christmas move. For context, Die Hard is second. I watch it at minimum once every December. I think it's brilliant and for sure it's my favorite Kubrick film. My only criticism -- and believe me I'm trying to get over it -- is the way Bill and Alice repeat what the person said right before. I've read ideas it adds to the dream state the characters are in, if that's the case. I want to believe that, or anything, so it stops bugging me. I bring this up only so I have something to contribute to these comments, otherwise I'd just be saying I love it! 😁
I like this movie. Lots of hot females in it.
Eyes Wide Shut is an extraordinary film. 2001 and Barry Lyndon are Kubrick’s masterpieces, but Eyes Wide Shut gets pretty close to that level. It’s an easy top 4 Kubrick for me.
This is my favorite film by Kubrick
It's made by Kubrick so it must be a masterpiece. Actually it sucked. One viewing is enough.
Unpopular opinion his best film was Barry Lyndon. Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s most meta film. I enjoy your perspective here I see at least 4 themes running through it. Love & commitment, Good and Evil, Friendship and Enemies, Deception and Temptation. I think if Kubrick had lived a bit longer there wold have been some changes to the Final Cut, alas we’ll never know. I think the sexless vibe of the erotic scenes is intentional. Showing how when we are drawn by our imagination and desire how the reality never quite lives up to our fantasy. I think theres a secret narrative as well I won’t post it here. Kubrick’s a master architect and his films have hidden rooms.
my favorite movie of all time
I love Kubrick, he has always been my favorite director, and this was a film that initially underwhelmed me upon first viewing, but has grown in stature each time I see it again. I still would not put it up at the top of the list along with the Shining or 2001, but it is still a very good, very complex, fairly psychologically disturbing film that needs mooltipule views before even a seasoned Kubrick fan can truly appreciate, IMO...
:=8)
cold, tedious and unsatisfying on first viewing.
maybe I'll give it another go sometime.
thanks!
I liked it, but it feels like things were cut out of the ladder half of the movie.
Thank you for revisiting Eyes Wide Shut. This past December, I watched this at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago as part of their twisted/alternate Christmas series. The film received a standing ovation.
I likes the film but it's far from Kubrick's best. I've heard the scenes at the masque party were censored after Kubrick's death by creating figures to stand in front of people doing sex acts. I know Kubrick lived in the UK and filmed there due to fear of flying or whatever but this was the first film that I could see it since I have lived in NYC. Full Metal Jacket fooled me but not this one.
Well this was a pleasant surprise, glad you reevaluated this. I definitely think it's one of Kubrick's most interesting and according to his family it was his favorite of his films. It almost has a bit of a Lynchian feel to me
What’s the evidence for his claim it was his favourite? Interesting aside when James Cameron went to Kubricks house, he thought they’d be discussing Stanley’s work instead Kubrick wanted to know how various elements of True Lies was accomplished. He thought it was Cameron’s best film.
@@cannibalholocaust3015 His daughter Katharina has stated it many times, including in some reddit AMAs. She also says it at the end of this video here th-cam.com/video/yVcTi5d2OHY/w-d-xo.html I'm pretty sure his assistant Jan Harlan also says it at the end of that video. I've also heard his wife Christiane say it but I can't remember at the moment where I heard it.
Also for what it's worth his wife and daughter have both refuted that the version released was butchered, and have said it was Stanley's final cut
A great great movie. Do believe, however, that Stanley Kubrick died before one or two final edits.
I know this has been denied, but it's not quite finished to his standards. IMHO
You have to know Kubrick was married for close to 40 years in England missing New York. This is is very personal for his last film. You have to experience love and life before you can appreciate it
I watch this movie every Christmas. The first time I watched it was around Oct/Nov during freshman year at college and I fell asleep the first few times. Then I watched it -- and was hooked. It's awesome to watch in a hazy state. I love how you say -- you notice different things every time you watch it. It's so true. This year I was focused so much on the aspect ratio. One version of the DVD I have it's the full frame aspect ratio. I'm always puzzled by the set manipulation too. We see the same exterior set, but mixed around to make different street facades. I try to focus in on this when I watch the film now, but I can't wrap my head around it. I love this movie so much. Thanks for another stellar review.
I have friends who hate this movie, but I’ve always loved it.
Then again I love all Kubrick’s films.
Kubrick Top 3: Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon, 2001. Incredible work.
With the popularity of the Mission Impossible films and Top Gun Maverick it's easy to forget what an acclaimed dramatic actor Tom Cruise is, especially from thr late 80s all the way through the 90s he worked with a lot of fantastic directors
Agreed. Love all his films.
As a Kubrick fanatic, I couldn't wait for Eyes Wide Shut to hit theaters. My first theatrical Kubrick experience was in '87 when Full Metal Jacket was released. So, when Eyes came out so much exitement had been built up, that when I finally saw it, my initial reaction was, "That's it?" It felt like it was an hour long and I kept thinking there was going to be a huge scene at the end. Well, after I got some distance from it, I watched it with fresh eyes and it slowly unfolded its secrets, and yes, I was able to realize what the huge scene really was. I ended up loving the ending, even if it initially felt like a fairly shallow epilogue tacked onto the end.
Yeah, I became a Kubrick fan at age 11 in 1969 when I saw 2001, and eventually went to film school. Upon "The Shining", I became increasingly disappointed with each successive release of his latest films, and EWS topped it off. It really seemed like a let down the first time I saw it. After rewatching it on DVD I realized there was much more to it than I could absorb on the first viewing. After a couple more views I have developed a much greater appreciation for it. Because it deals with very common human issues, I find it to be his most relatable movie, and thus am more able to appreciate it. It requires honesty from the viewer, not simply attention. One cannot judge it without judging oneself first.
I'm the mid 2000s my dad went through a midlife/existential crisis and started watching all kinds of artsy films. one time I went downstairs and he was watching eyes wide shut. I was probably 14. It was the first erotic drama I'd ever watched. It isn't his masterpiece but it's a pretty solid film IMO.
Saw this on Christmas at the Metrograph in Chinatown. Everyone was dying of laughter every time Tom Cruise opened his mouth. It was fun.
Also, on the topic of mirroring. After the orgy, Tom revisits every place he went before, in reverse order, until he ends back up at Sydney Pollack's house.
So cool to hear how much your opinion of this film has changed over the years, I'm sure a lot of people can relate to that. I've recently posted a Stanley Kubrick series so I'm fascinated to see what other people think about this crazy film haha! The initial watch is DEFINITELY easy to go over someone's head. As much as I loved the film I can completely see how simple this film can seem on the surface, especially given all its hype. Loved how you talked about the different themes of the film, like you said the theme of general mistrust is a great way to categorise it. Really thought-through and interesting video you've put together here, was an insightful watch ☺
You have an amazing gift of analysis and appreciation for the depths of film. Thank you
You're the only reviewer I know who gave opposite opinions about a movie but said insightful things about it in both.
Nice re-evaluation, Maggie. This review is a fine example of how a review is never the final word but rather the beginning of a longer conversation. As for the film, I haven't seen it in years, but I liked it a lot. I don't consider it in the top echelon of Kubrick's filmography, but it's still pretty good, from what I remember.
Curious to know if you're reviewing the US or European cut -- the latter's o-sequence is, let us say, unexpurgated...
I loved it. My favorite Kubrick.
I'm sure that me providing the 666th Like is just strange coincidence with little real meaning. 😳
Appreciate your updated perspective. It's one that's changed with time for me too, I think it's genius.
Oh yeah this is a muuuch better review than the first one. I like your decision to keep both up, to show how your perspective evolved over time as you watched it more
The one thing that resonates with me from Eyes Wide Shut, is the many, many bullets I have dodged in my life, an almost prophetic reasoning reality would intrude into my life and save me from myself.
IMO it's a film that I'm always hesitant to speak too strongly on, whether in the positive or negative, simply because Kubrick hadn't finished the post-production by the time he died. He's infamous for taking YEARS on post-production, and his final vision could have been edited into something much different than what we eventually received. We'll never know for sure.
You forgot a very important element in the film: sex is an exchange in power just as different classes are an exchange in power.
In the scenes where Tom Cruise is in the cab, at the costume shop, or at the prostitute's apartment the film is shot using a hand held 8mm camera that is grainy and jittery. In the scenes at Tom Cruise's apartment, medical office, or in stores it is shot in a more stationary 35mm camera. At places like the party at the beginning of the movie or the sex orgy at the climax of the movie it is shot in 70mm film. In 8mm film, Tom Cruise is in power and in charge over the people he interacts with. In 35mm film there is a power exchange where he is equals to everyone he interacts with. In 70mm film, he is both subordinate and out of place with people he interacts with. All three film types, the sexual exchanges are different. In 8mm film Tom Cruise is in control and people want to engage in sex with him. In 35mm film there is conflict and compromise between Tom Cruise and his wife. In 70mm film there is only sexual fantasy that is never obtainable.
I love how Stanley Kubrick uses this simple camera trick to change the dynamics of power throughout the whole film.
I saw it the day it opened, packed theater, and all through the orgy segment everyone was roaring with laughter. After all the hyped build up. I think we saw the original longer undigitized version. They never should have touched it, just to get a R rating. Warner Brothers Suit Dicks ruined it.
Could you review VANILLA SKY at some point. I would love to get your opinion. Great vid. New sub.
🙋
One of my all time favourite Kubrick films and highly misunderstood by his fans. I don’t know if l personally lean towards the “masterpiece” side of the group but definitely NOT towards the ones who claim that is one of Kubrick’s worst work.
IMHO it’s one of his best films, just not up there with Clockwork Orange, 2001 and The Shining.
It's up there.
For me the evidence that the film is a dream is through the newspaper article about the dead hooker -- freeze frame it and you'll discover duplicate paragraphs and broken sentences, something Kubrick would never have done by accident -- he shows the article twice in the film.
An excellent encapsulation of the movie. I watched this video of yours previously and I rewatched the film again this evening. It is endlessly, endlessly fascinating, like taking a trip down an adult rabbit hole through a looking glass darkly. It isn't a perfect film and I question some of Kubrik's direction, shot choices and casting but I forgive it for all of that, because of its boldness, starkness and absolutely riveting, mesmerising, almost expressionist acting at times, when the script must have been an unbelievable challenge for the likes of Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise and others to make credible. I don't think it is a masterpiece and I do find it drags a little at times but I wouldn't have it cut down by one frame. It's a shame that there isn't more male open nudity in the film to gender balance the sect gathering but I guess that was just the sign of the no show times! I would love to see something like this done in a similar vein from the female (director) perspective some day. That would be interesting. Hmmmm... Nicole Kidman's character is called Alice; curiouser and curiouser!
To interpret the movie in broad strokes, I think it's about how sexuality is a feature of public life that everybody participates in, but it's hidden. The "dream" in "Dream Story" refers to this, but it's unclear if the dream is the hidden and sexual dimension of our society or if it's the publicly visible life we lead outside of the bedroom. This is why the opening party scene can be contrasted with the orgy scene. The latter is simply the same scene except sexuality is made explicit whereas it was implicit or hidden in the party scene. The orgy scene reveals what is going on under the surface in the party scene. It is unseen because it is disguised, which also speaks to the significance of the literal masks they they wear. The question is which is the real us and which is the disguised or masked version of ourselves.
There's a little known detail at the end which I think speaks to this. In the final scene, you see a prominently featured board game in the toy store called "Magic Circle." So far as I can tell, there was no real board game with that name, but the term "magic circle" refers to Johan Huizinga's theory of games or play. Inside a game, according to Huizinga, we create an alternate social reality, or what Huizinga's students call the "magic circle," that is limited and conditioned by the game's rules and objectives, a reality that exists only inside the circle, but once the game is finished, we're returned to the rules and objectives of reality (sort of like waking from a dream), and this analysis tempts us to ask how "real" the non-game reality is, or if it isn't just another game that we confused with reality. What we take to be social norms, institutions, legal systems, and all the other features of actually existing social and political reality, of course, are to some degree socially constructed, invented just like the rules which determine our relationship to one another in any game inside a magic circle, so somebody can argue that they are games themselves, or just another "magic circle." You can argue that monogamous marriage, like seduction, is such a magic circle, a game.
At any rate, I didn't care for this movie when it was first released, but having seen it countless times by now and interpreted it backward and forward, I'd easily put it in my top 3 Kubrick films and somewhere in my top 10 films of that decade.
It is a great final line
I love Kubrick, and I love this movie. I find myself putting this and The Shining on just randomly when I want to have something on and not necessarily pay attention.
Let me preface my opinions on not liking this movie with that I'm a huge cubic fan Barry Lyndon is probably my all time favorite movie ever and the shining is excellent and 2001 goes without mentioning but I believe Kubrick blew it in this movie I think it was a huge mistake I think it was a Caspar I cruise who's just vapor anyway and Nicole Kidman was horrible in the movie the same when she was supposed to be a smoke pot and she was like in her underwear and laughing giggling it was terrible I thought it was embarrassing I think I missed adapting the material to modern times
It's a true masterpiece. And I think we're meant to be left feeling empty. It's very Beckettesque in a way
I still agree with your original review lol. The film is way too meandering in my opinion
I’ve tried to enjoy The Shining, and I feel it’s low on the list of Kubrick films for me.
I wrestle with this movie. I was a film student and loved Kubrick so my intent is not to disparage him but I think he is the most obvious example "the halo effect"., yes he was a genius filmmaker but let's not forget he was a still photographer at first and a lot of people argue he "continued to be" with his endless take's and wide angle natural light style.
People play a game of "where waldo" with is film's like he was planting clues, but who know's if that was his intent at all, I think he spent a tremendous amount of effort on creating an "environment" a real place. (like Ridley Scott did with ALIEN, creating a real spaceship for the camera operator to "find shots in". Going with the still photography idea....I think of his film's like paintings and people read into them creating more than 80% of the implied "content" At first I thought Eye's Wide Shut was about a man not able to buy his way to the truth even though having a tremendous amount of resources., nope. Then I thought it was about "going too far", nope. I think Kubrick was a genius but I also think a lot of people talk about Kubrick and if a genius makes something , it MUST be good, or there MUST be hidden messages. But if Eye Wide Shut was made by James Cameron , would we still be spotting hidden illuminati symbolism and so on?. I still don't know.
Didn't they give their daughter away to a couple of men in the final scene? Which makes them free to explore their suppressed voyeurism unencumbered by parental responsibilities.
That movie has a vibe
It gets under your skin
Love that movie
I think the film is a dream and there are many indicators in the film that tell you that. I see a similar vibe to Mulholland Drive, which I think is also a dream.
I read that Kubrick thought that it was his finest film. I also like the fact that Barry Lyndon has also been the object of increased appreciation over the years. I really loved it and was impressed by many aspects of the film and not just the remarkable photography.
Good movie and Nicole is topless which every movie needs.
Well said!
It's true that often our mood or frame of mind on any given day can change how we view a film. But at the same time, in the same way we feel when we meet a new person our instinctive reaction is an important factor. EWS is a very dull film for such an exciting stimulating subject. Yes, we can all revisit it, and maybe through familiarity build some affection for it - but ultimately it is a relationship that is strained from the beginning. Cruise and Kidman are a huge part of why it doesn't work. In retrospect that's probably because they never had any believable chemistry as a couple in the first place. What we see on screen was an echo of real life. The couple in EWS should never have been married, and it appears the same could be said of Cruise and Kidman. They both lacked the necessary spark and crackle that would drive this particular story and I feel it would have been a completely different film if the casting had chosen more suitable leads. Kubrick f***ed up on this one. He's allowed to though, because he's the GOAT. Enough said.
Have you seen the original adaptation starring a certain Peeping Tom?
th-cam.com/video/d172U5tmTwQ/w-d-xo.html
I see this film as Kubrick's long delayed reaction to Blow Up. The idea of perception vs reality is a dominant theme in this film.
This film is similar to Hitchcock's Family plot. In that it was his last film and there was something off about it. Like Family Plot,it was a good film yet not one of his best.
The cameraman being seen in the bathroom in the early part of the film was an editing error of the highest order. Kubrick was so OCD it is shocking how he left that in. In addition,he did a gazillion takes so one would think a better take existed.
Masterpiece. Been one of my favorite Kubrick’s since I saw it in the theater. Easily my favorite Cruise movie.
Aside from the highly-annoying score, I really liked this film. Always have. It does run out of steam after the sinister party though.
I saw an early print of the film which had some sound and editing issues as well as shots where you could see reflections of the crew (bathroom scene at the party). These issues were shocking to me as I was aware of Kubrick's famous attention to detail especially for screenings of his work. As Kubrick had just died, it felt like the studio had forsaken his memory by allowing a flawed print out into the wild. This colored my original perception of the film and it took me a long time to warm up to it.
I hated it the 1st time I saw it, and the scene where they smoked weed Nicole's acting was horrible, but as an adult & watching for the subtext it was much more interesting. Particularly if you are familiar with MK ultra processes, plus Nicole's real background as a child in Australia it becomes much deaper.
You sure like the word "Soporiphic" don't you
Incredible film. Eyes Wide Shut is the film that Tar wishes it is.
I didn’t care for it as much until I saw his wife’s interview of it and how her discussion about it with him went. It’s meant to explore the knowledge Women have that men don’t have, watching it in that light is opens it up a lot.
I find both of your reviews to be perfectly valid as analyses of how you received the film at the respective times. There is definitely an intended dreamlike visual interpretation of ideas informed by the source material that translates into the positive qualities you speak of here. In spite of all that, I still cannot get past something I'll sum up in one word: Hokey.
While Kubrick was an amazingly gifted film-maker, I also get the sense that, like many artists, he was not the deep thinker that people want to make him out to be.
I saw this in theaters and was just obsessed with the sheer imagery of the film. Hard to believe given how much galactic talent there was in theaters that year, but today it's a sledgehammer of craftsmanship compared to what's out and about. I didn't think about the subtext until later.
Alex Cox referred to this as a "rake's progress" story so I think of the story as a man's descent into the depravity of others once he realizes that he his wife has more than what he saw before. But being naive and new to it, he bungles his way through and it almost gets him killed and he learns the danger of exploring those undercurrents that the people around him have just given in to. So it's hard for me to analyze the subtext of the film that everybody else seems to say because it feels too Easter Egg-y for me and I think Kubrick would find that cheap and insincere.
I agree with what Jack Nicholson said about Kubrick's films: "they are completely conscious" so for me, reading things on the subconscious level is far too much like navel-gazing instead of seeing what's been presented honestly but perhaps subtly.
Are these the last 24 minutes of eyes wide shut perhaps.
The toy store scene is not the end of the movie. They buy a teddy bear for their daughter. Tom notices the two men watching them. They smie at him and he smiles back.
Next scene, they exit the store and Kidman takes the daughter into a limo with the two old men. Tom is confused, Kidmantas him not to worry or he'll scare their daughter, She tells him not to ask questions and coaxes him to get Inside of the limo. They drive to the manor in Long Taland in silence while the daughter is finishing coloring a rainbow inside of a coloring book. A guard greets the two man and the two men exit with Kidman and her daughter. The guard tells Tom to wait in the car. Tom watches them all go inside. He asks the driver what's going on and the driver doesn't answer. Tom keeps looking at the manor door. Eventually Tum exits the car and goes inside the manor.
It's empty. He runs around looking for his family. He hears voices coming from inside of a room. He opens the door and hears his wife saying "now sucker a lllipop" His wife and daughter are naked in bed with
the two men, who are wearing mesks. They're all wrapped in a bed sheet so it's only implied nudity.
Two quards wearing masks-enter and restrain Tom. He struggles and ane of them punches him in the stomach. He collapses on the floor and starts crying. The two old men ask him "what's the meter, as if they are confused. Kidman sells them "he doesn't know. After a moment of silence one of the men simply says, "you've cost us a life. It must be replaced." His daughter begins to cry and Kidman comforts her. Then she walks over to Tom and comforts him, saying something along the lines of "they're not going to keep her, it's just every now and then. Then she assures him that they won't harm her or the two of them. She says "you're one of us now. As he is coming to terms with it, she puts a mask on him and then she starts disrobing him as the guards let go of him.
Before I get into the last scene, let me tell you what was explained to me about what I just told you. What was explained to me is that this is Tom and his daughter's initiation ritual into the society. The reason he never has sex in the movie after the party is because it's a part of the ritual. They are watching him, paving people off, and keeping him celibate for the initiation. Two other things. The toy store scene is about Kidman selling their daughter to the society. The two men are there to look at "toys." The end of the rainbow is about Tom finding out the dark truth about what the elites are doing, which will occur through Tom having sex. The last time we see it is before they go inside the manor.
The last scene.
The last scene is one continuous steady-cam shot following 2legler. It begins on a painting of a baby, as Ziegler is getting dressed and then walking into a party that's going on at his house. The shot follows him through the party and during it we see Kidman surrounded by a group of men and laughing. Lots of pictures and symbols of "elitists" are seen in the background during this sequence. What can also be seen are pictures that allude to Kubrick's previous works; pictures of Ziegler with generals, astronauts, and either Jack Nicholson himself or a man that's supposed to be him. This was apparently Kubrick outing all of the people involved as well as saying his goodbye to cinema
It ends with us seeing Tom off in the distance of the shot. He is standing by himself, eway from other partygoers and staring off into the distance in a zombie-like fashion, as if disillusioned by everything. He's on the outdoor balcony. He casually jumps over the ralling as no one even notices and the movie cuts to black. Kubrick has left the building.
Kubrick said the movie was simply about how the people who run the world are rich banking families who are profoundly evil. They are pedophiles and are holding women as sex slaves, while murdering anyone who challenges them. And no one is talking about it. That's it. There is no underlying theme about the need for intimacy. The only underlying theme is about how naive everyone is to what's really going on.
From what I was told this isn't even a real secret to people who worked in the industry at the time. Over 7 hours of flim did not make it into the final cut. The argument over final cut was over defamation and explicitness. One of the names in the movie sounded like someone powerful apparently and they wanted Stanley to cut it. Supposedly he didn't. A lot of people think as the guy at the beginning named Sandor. There was a gray area over how much power Stanley's director's cut had over the run time. The studio could not change the content of the film, but they were allowed to cut it off before it ran over two hours and forty minutes. The reason they cut down the film is because they thought the pedophile angle would piss people off and ruin Tom and Nicole's career. Supposedly it had nothing to do with illuminati button pushers stopping what was being said. It was more of an appearance thing. But again, this is Just the Hollywood insider story about why they cut the film's ending. It's not the insider insider's story, if you get my drift. Keep in mind that they told Stanley to cut the ending and he didn't want to do it. There is a strong chance he was waiting for them to cave and then he died and they cut the ending without him being around to agree to it. My belief is that if he had lived and he knew they were threatening to cut the ending to fit the run time, he would've probably recut it so that he didn't go over the run time and audiences got to see the ending.
If you work in the industry and want to hear this from a direct source, my advice is to find someone who worked in post or as a studio rep or exec during that period. Those people are the ones who see the first cuts. You might get lucky.
There is no evidence for ANY of this. You have to believe his family is in on all of this too. These “deleted” scenes are so Un-Kubrick like and would make this movie comically bad. Show some respect to the filmmaker
I’ve wanted you to change your tune about this film. So this is so satisfying
i still think kubrick made this inspired by david lynch at the time.
Nice review! Im glad you gave it another go , i remember seeing it when it came out and was very underwhelmed but when i was watching it years later, after going through some bad breakups and whatnot i was like OhhHHH ok i get it lol
We're gonna party like it's 1999
I think the phrase "Eyes Wide Shut" speaks to a lot of us who were blinded by normalcy bias or political correctness or whatever you want to call it during the Obama years. Eyes Wide Shut could be retitled Eye Told You So.
What a stupid comment.
Stoked to see this review, because I need to revisit the film. I actually loved it on the first watch, but there’s nothing like rewatching a Kubrick film!