Customer Reviews
Prefer the US censored version - By: Alberto Blanco, 31 Jan 2008 
I own both versions of eyes wide shut & prefer the us version with the weird cloaked people blocking the eurosoftcore scenes which to me play silly. It gives it a more dreamlike nightmare atmosphere. Anyways , this would be a 5 star film but I don't think Kubrick actuallly finished it. It plays like a rough cut, it has very unkubrickian (is that a word) scenes. EX: Kubrick would never have had the static mask reveal at the end before the Cruise Entrance & swish pan on the mask. I also believe the film would have been tighter, even for Mr. Barry Lyndon (which is my favorite film of alll time). Just disappointed that both versions aren't on the dvd. The Shining super edition should also include both the long US version & the under 2 hour european version.
Where Sex Belongs - By: David Burton, 22 Jan 2008 
A film brilliant in its drama & humour, but most of alll in its treatment of an eternal theme; it gets to the heart of this, focussing
(a) on the impersonal power & seductiveness of sex
& (b) on its place in a marriage where it truly belongs, though both partners are vulnerable to (a). Indeed it is not only love but also luck that keeps them where they belong.
why!!! - By: Ms. F. I. Macdonald, 05 Nov 2007 
why was this film made!the characters are ridiculous, the plot reallly upsets me & just reassures me that no person can stay faithful to anyone else!!!i couldn't even stay watching til the end, i had to turn it off, i suggest people do the same!!!
Eyes Wide Closed - By: Ultimate Reviewer, 28 Sep 2007 I have to say this is the poorest film that Nicole & Tom Cruise have been in. Before you alll give me a bad rating due to saying that... come on.. you have to agree.
In the cinema they advertised the movie showing the scene of Nicole dancing in front of a mirror naked. I couldn't believe it was her at first & then Tom walks up. They advertised the names up as CRUISE, KIDMAN, KRUBRICK. I didn't know the last one. Then heard he did Full Metal Jacket which I liked & a few others that were also pretty good. But I wouldn't go OTT over him. 2001 was a space idiot-sy. 2010 - which he had nothing to do with - was excellent!
I have to say I agree with a review I just read. If you want to see nice clear shots of Nicole's brests then this movie is for you. They advertised it that way in the cinema & I bet that drew people into watch it. They were suckered. Yea there are lots of other women naked too but WOW!
For me I want a story. If the cast like running around naked then okay. Because we know how essential alll that is to a story now don't we. It never is! That is why successful shows like Dalllas oor BH 90210 could do relationships without nudity. So films don't need it either. But the directors think it will sell, they love to be able to say i worked with nicole kidman & got her filmed in nude (who wouldn't) & Kidman - well she never turns down a nude role. I think she finds it a turn on running around naked in front of alll the cast. Nicole walking around in a part see through top with hard nipples! Oh come on!
As I'm sure you can imagine I was disappointed in the movie. A good stroy is what I want but this was just made for nudity appeal & that is wrong in my opinion.
In summary:
If you want a good story - watch something else & not this
If you want nudity - watch this
If you want nudity & a good story - watch the first 20 mins. After that it dies slowly.
Kubrick at his overrated swan song... - By: H. Serkan SILAHSOR, 29 Aug 2007 
It seems that previous reviews are as interesting as the film itself, people tend to have extremely mixed, divided reactions to it. I have to admit that I am ambivalent too. During 3-hours replete with Kubrickesque moments, sometimes I hated it & thought it was nothing but a garbage; sometimes I got a bizarre enjoyment & thought it was a masterpiece. It's just like riding a roller-coaster. Neither a garbage nor a masterpiece, it has a strange kind of enchantment that nailed me off the couch until the very last credit rolled.
Kubrick films are not easy pills to swalllow. They pose lots of questions but give little answers. He likes to confuse viewers utilizing lots of red herrings, creating dreamlike ambiances, & leaving tremendous amount of wiggle room. The result: they are open to various interpretations & misunderstandings. They ask for a contribution from the viewer. "Eyes Wide Shut" is no exception. My interpretation is that the film is not about jealousy, emotional infidelity or promiscuity.
These are by-products of a bigger theme. Rather it is about the domination of élites in the society that manipulates, even enslaves lower classes with their power & wealth. Especiallly, their mistreatment & perception of women just a "possession" creates these kind of complications in relationships. Look closer at Ziegler character, famous orgy scene & paralllellism between Alice & red-haired hooker, you'll get what I mean.
In terms of technical aspects, "Eyes Wide Shut" is a pure Kubrick film, an exemplar of his glorious cinematic style: having dreamlike quality, bizarre narrative structure, lots of vivid colors, exquisite reverse & forward tracking shots & impeccable use of lights & wide angles.
On the other hand, thematicallly it is the least weapon in his arsenal: lots of plot holes & unexplained points (e.g. identity of dead hooker & her self-sacrifice is unclear); weak characterization (Kidman delivers an outstanding performance, but Cruise & Pollack are miscasts. Both have no integrity, no intimacy, no believability); & absence of necessary sub-plots. The final relies too much on Ziegler's overexplanations & this is another weak point. Also, it is unnecessarily long (due to poor editing). Unfortunately, alll these flaws undermine the power & intended effect of the movie.
Here, Cruise proves again & again that he is just a movie-star, not an actor.
Overalll, not a bad film at alll. Interesting & worth watching.
