Review of Eyes Wide Shut (1999) by Rob S — 16 Jun 2012

There appear to be a large number of intelligent people out there who consider this to be a great work of cinema. If you read their opinions, they almost invariably mention the word "dreamlike" and make mention of Kubrick's genius. If any objection is raised that the dialogue in EWS is a series of cliches; that Cruise and Kidman give performances on par with that of the kid in high school who has been told that there was pot In the brownies and proceeds to taaaaalk reaaaally slooowly; that the moments when they're meant to be sober are even further removed from anything like actual exchanges between spouses; if any of these things is mentioned, one is referred back to Kubricks genius and the dreamlike quality. Here's a fact: if the goal here was to evoke a dream, there have been dozens of directors less talented than Kubrick to convey that atmosphere quite effectively. Moreover, any director worth his salt who wants his viewer to perceive bad acting as dreaminess will give the audience at least one scene of reality and good acting by way of comparison.

For all his genius, Kubrick was far from a perfect director. This film is the result of the same problems as 2001. Kubrick has placed more value on ideas and symbols, dedicated so much energy to staging and research, that he has neglected the human element. We're left with characters that talk like characters, not like people. And the fact is, like in 2001, while Kubricks ideas may be interesting, they're not 2 1/2 hours worth of interesting. They're insightful in the simple, observational way of Godards early films, only Godard didn't overvalue his ideas. He presented them in an hour and a half and then that was that.