|
Eyes Wide Shut [1999] | ![Eyes Wide Shut [1999]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FDCRAWP4L._SL75_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Stanley Kubrick
Actors: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Madison Eginton, Jackie Sawiris, Sydney Pollack
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: Video
List Price: £9.99
Buy New: £0.01
You Save: £9.98 (100%)
New (2) Used (26) Collectible (6) from £0.01
Avg. Customer Rating:  62 reviews
Sales Rank: 2079
Format: Black & White, Closed-captioned, Colour, Dolby, Pal, Surround Sound
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over
Media: VHS Tape
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 152
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 4.2 x 1.1
EAN: 5014780176553
ASIN: B00004RCPU
Theatrical Release Date: July 16, 1999
Release Date: September 10, 2001
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk Review
It was inevitable that Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut would be the most misunderstood film of 1999. Kubrick died four months prior to its release and there was no end to speculation about how much he would have tinkered with the picture, changed it, "fixed" it. We'll never know. But even without the haunting enigma of the director's death--and its eerie echo/anticipation in the scene when Dr Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) visits the deathbed of one of his patients--Eyes Wide Shut would have perplexed and polarised viewers and reviewers. After all, virtually every movie of Kubrick's post-US career had; only 1964's Dr. Strangelove opened to something approaching consensus. Quite apart from the author's tinkering, Kubrick's movies themselves always seemed to change--partly because they changed us, changed the world and the ways we experienced and understood it. And we may expect Eyes Wide Shut to do the same. Unlike Kubrick himself, it has time. So consider, as we settle in to live with this long, advisedly slow, mesmerising film, how challenging and ambiguous its narrative strategy is. The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or "Dream Story") and it's a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords' bedroom to the backstage replica of New York's Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife's teasing confession of fantasised infidelity and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level--visually, psychologically, logically--every scene shimmers with unreality. Is everything in the movie a dream? And if so, who is dreaming it at any given moment and why? Don't settle for easy answers. Kubrick's ultimate odyssey beckons. And now the dream is yours. --Richard T Jameson
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 57 more reviews...
 Prefer the US censored version January 31, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I own both versions of eyes wide shut and 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 actually 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 and 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 all time). Just disappointed that both versions aren't on the dvd. The Shining super edition should also include both the long US version and the under 2 hour european version.
 Where Sex Belongs January 22, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
A film brilliant in its drama and humour, but most of all in its treatment of an eternal theme; it gets to the heart of this, focussing
(a) on the impersonal power and seductiveness of sex
and (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!!! November 5, 2007
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
why was this film made!the characters are ridiculous, the plot really upsets me and 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 September 28, 2007
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
I have to say this is the poorest film that Nicole and Tom Cruise have been in. Before you all 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 all that is to a story now don't we. It never is! That is why successful shows like Dallas 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 and got her filmed in nude (who wouldn't) and Kidman - well she never turns down a nude role. I think she finds it a turn on running around naked in front of all 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 and that is wrong in my opinion.
In summary:
If you want a good story - watch something else and not this
If you want nudity - watch this
If you want nudity and a good story - watch the first 20 mins. After that it dies slowly.
 Kubrick at his overrated swan song... August 29, 2007
26 out of 29 found this review helpful
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 and thought it was nothing but a garbage; sometimes I got a bizarre enjoyment and 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 swallow. They pose lots of questions but give little answers. He likes to confuse viewers utilizing lots of red herrings, creating dreamlike ambiances, and leaving tremendous amount of wiggle room. The result: they are open to various interpretations and 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 and wealth. Especially, their mistreatment and perception of women just a "possession" creates these kind of complications in relationships. Look closer at Ziegler character, famous orgy scene and parallellism between Alice and 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 and impeccable use of lights and wide angles.
On the other hand, thematically it is the least weapon in his arsenal: lots of plot holes and unexplained points (e.g. identity of dead hooker & her self-sacrifice is unclear); weak characterization (Kidman delivers an outstanding performance, but Cruise and Pollack are miscasts. Both have no integrity, no intimacy, no believability); and absence of necessary sub-plots. The final relies too much on Ziegler's overexplanations and this is another weak point. Also, it is unnecessarily long (due to poor editing). Unfortunately, all these flaws undermine the power and intended effect of the movie.
Here, Cruise proves again and again that he is just a movie-star, not an actor.
Overall, not a bad film at all. Interesting and worth watching.
|
|
|
| |
