The question of Eyes Wide Shut being a masterpiece or complete blunder has been presented to me a number of times. I believe that it was Kubrick's final masterpiece and that it will take a couple of years for everybody to fully realize how great it was. Let me know what you guys think.

I think it's Kubrick's third finest film. Everyone was expecting a near-porno with a whole bunch of sex, and when it turned out to have much higher ambitions, they got scared off. The movie attempts to explain the nature of desire, and for that alone, it gets respect in my book. It has a few problems here and there, but I think it's a great film, and more misunderstood than nearly any movie in recent memory. As time passes, people will see it for the masterwork that it is.

Well, I'm not really gonna comment on the movie itself, but I totally, 100% do NOT buy this "it will eventually be recongized for the work of art it is" stuff. This is rarely true of any movie. People still considering 2001 boring (I'm one of them), years later, and years from now, people will still consider Eyes Wide Shut just another bleak Kubrick movie trying to be deep by showing you sad and/or shocking things.

Trying to be deep! It is pretty deep and I think visually beautiful as well. It explores the sexual desires and relationship of a couple. This includes their fantasies. As for beautiful I point to the masks of the Orgy Scenes. WOW! Those are some beautiful scenes in that house with the rich vibrant color of the carpet, walls, and masks. And if you want to talk about an intricate movie go no farther. I know some of you might think that I'm picking at it, but in every scene of the movie there is a christmas tree and lights except for in the house of the orgy. It stood out to me as making the masion seem like another world. Pay attention to the trees and lights throughout the film and you will notice so much stuff.

Would you like me to go down through the years, TWT? Do you have any idea which movies weren't considered to be great when they were released, but 5 or 10 or 20 years later, people rediscovered them? Citizen Kane was HATED when it was released. HATED. Not a damn person stuck up for it. 20 years later, it was voted the greatest film of all time by both the critics and the directors in the Sight and Sound poll, and hasn't been out of the #1 spot since. Bonnie and Clyde - the movie was SLAMMED on release, and opened to only one or two ecstatic reviews. Now it's seen as one of the seminal films of American cinema, and a masterpiece. Kramer vs. Kramer won best picture over Apocalypse Now, which most audiences and critics dismissed as pretentious crap. Now it's considered to be one of the greatest and most powerful of all films. There are literally scores of other films that have been neglected upon release, then later down the line seen in the light that they deserve. I'll give you more examples if you're skeptical.

You would have to give thousands for those films to be in the majority. Most films that people do not recognize as great do not turn out to be great. Please realize that for every Citizen Kane, there are 100 poor films that are never considered great.

And let's not forget that it's very easy, and convienent to say "this will be recognized later down the years" -- it's the kind of claim that virtually no one will follow up on. A claim that is it's own defense...I just don't buy it.

While I do not agree with TWT's assessment of the melarky inherent in the statement "this movie will be revered 10 years down the line," I will say that EYES WIDE SHUT wasn't my favorite Kubrick. That being said, it had many good points, most of which either OG or Steve pointed out. Desire, in its simplest and most complex form, is often studied but never really uncovered in many movies. Kubrick goes for broke here, and he spent a whole darn lot of time trying to do it.

I think that most admirable part of this movie is Tom Cruise's performance here (by no means is it a Frank TJ Mackie...). A lot of people discredit Cruise for his action-adventurey movies (MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, TOP GUN, blah blah) but he really does have talent (RAIN MAN, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, MAGNOLIA).

Yes, Commish, it's bleak. What do you expect? I think it's a good solid picture.

oh, man. i can't believe TWTCommish is busting on Kubrick. i mean, you can bust on a lot of people, but how could anyone not like kubrick? i guess it's opinion, but jesus, the guy was a genius. and 2001 is BORING? like all of kubrick's films, there is a lot of subtext and nuance that you would have to really dig deep to uncover. it's not as flashy as the crap that gets released today, but it's more ambitious and deep than what is normally known as scifi.

as for eyes wide shut, i'm almost ashamed to say this, but i haven't seen it yet. i will rent it as soon as i get a chance, though. i have heard both sides of the argument, and i always seem to suspect that the people who think it's a little too subtle to be immediately appreciated are probably on to something. i can't pass up one of my favorite directors, so i have to see it soon.

as for kubrick films "trying to be deep by showing sad and or shocking things" - the truth is kubrick films ARE deep. i have a book that EVERYONE should go read... it's called Kubrick by Michael Ciment. it's from the 80s, and it's currently out of print, but i got it from my library and it's incredible. it gives so much in depth meaning to his movies, and plus if you ever enter stanley kubrick into a search engine you can find dozens of essays online that go into the great detail and complexities of his films. what do you mean "trying" ?

What I mean is that just because a film is realistic, unhappy, or bleak, it does not make it good. I think some people are being duped here. From what I understand, 2001: The Book is much better than 2001: The Movie. I'm hesitant to give Kubrick a lot of credit for something he didn't even create, in that instance.

I have a simple theory, and no, I don't feel like arguing about it, because it'd be really, truly pointless. The theory is that Kubrick is one of the rare directors who does not always coddle the audience into a feel good ending, and as such he's thought to be some sort of genuis. Disagree if you like.

I was quite surprised, however, at the "how can anyone not like Kubrick" comment. Lots of people dislike him, and a lot of people think 2001 is boring.

Something else I want to mention: if you find yourself digging very, very deep for meaning in these films, then perhaps you're not finding Kubrick's meaning at all. It's entirely possible (and likely, in some cases, I'd bet) that the only deep, hidden meaning you will find in a film is the meaning you create yourself.

In short: any movie that talks about "delving into the subconcious of this" or "exploring the desire of the human soul" that, I am wary of. Films rarely have some twisted hidden meaning in them, and more often than not the director is probably thinking along different lines as well. If you have to dig for it, you're probably looking for something that isn't there.

First, comparing books to movies is stupid and not worth the time, because the art forms are completely different. Nobody but a churl would say "this sculpture is better than that painting". Kubrick DID create 2001...he did it all on his own, with his own imagination. The book, from what I've heard, is nothing like the film, and that alone sets the two apart. You're contradicting yourself - if the two are different, how can you be hesitant to pay him respect for his own vision and not the book's? 2001 is a masterpiece - anyone who says otherwise has preconceived notions about the director, or has developed cinematic A.D.D.

And you're right. Bleak realism does not a movie make. But the emotions in Kubrick's films are strong and deep - they just aren't your typical Steven Spielberg happy endings. Kubrick was a pessimist, and like any other true artist, his filmmaking was where he vented his frustrations and feelings. Who are we to criticize art on its general principles? I'm not going to say "look at all the detail that went into his films" or "they're so intricate" because that isn't why they're good. They're good because they express his feelings while still being terrific entertainments, and technically marvelous achievements. You can't criticize the man's work for expressing his feelings and vision, just like you can't criticize Spielberg for those reasons.

The films don't have some hidden twisted meaning in them - it's all in the presentation. The so-called "bleakness" is what the meaning stems from; for example, you wouldn't make a film about a serial killer who eats babies a light, frothy, childrens comedy. A certain amount of "bleakness" is required. Tell me if I'm misreading what you're saying.

TWT do you remember that idea I had for a forum where people could curse and use violent angry language. I wish that we had that right about now.

I find your comments to be very ignorant. About digging into films: That is what Kubrick wanted and he never wanted to tell anybody exactly what he was thinking about a movie because it was part of the art of cinema to figure out the meaning for yourself. Why the hell did you even start the movie site if your comments are to the effect of "Movies don't mean anything and you shouldn't dig into them because all directors are morons who have no message to get across"

About 2001 that movie is so intricate and complicated that I don't even think you get it at all.

Damn it your comments have seriously upset me!

Breath Zwee, breath. It's nowhere near ignorant. If you find yourself twisting and turning your thoughts for hours on end in the meaning of some movie, then you're probably seeing a meaning that isn't there. How could you know, anyway? You'd have to find Kubrick publicly stating the meaning behind it all, for one, in which case the meaning isn't hidden after all.

Basically, the odds that you'll find some deep hidden meaning in a film just as the director was thinking, are INCREDIBLY remote.

Steve: I am not comparing books to movies here, I'm saying that 2001 had some interesting concepts within it, and that the overall idea was not Kubrick's at all. And no, there is no contradiction here: Kubrick took an interesting idea, warped it around, and made it rather boring.

Bleak movies have their place, but I doubt he can do anything happy at all. Where is this guy's range? If you're going to go on about him as the great director who ever lived (well, some people here are), then he ought to be able to do more than just bleak movies. Even Spielberg did Schindler's List...and he did it well, I think.

And Zwee, you're right: maybe I don't get 2001. In fact, most people do not "get it" the way YOU do. This is because most people are not you. Other people probably think you've gotten it all wrong. The simple fact remains that if you've got to dig for a meaning, you're OVERWHELMINGLY more likely to find a meaning of your own fabrication, than one the director intended you to find.

I don't think movies are without meaning, either. And no, directors are not necessarily morons...but it's quite foolish to think that you've found the meaning of some movie like that, when the odds alone say there's no dang chance you think of the movie the same way Kubrick does, in terms of meaning/moral.

No other director has fans as loyal as Kubrick does. If one person decides to voice their opinion and say that his films don't appeal to him then he is shot down and considered to have no worthwile opinion on film. This isn't fair.

I like Kubrick. I am in love with his masterpiece Dr Strangelove. I find moments of 2001 to be extremely powerful (though there are dull bits). The opening act to Full Metal Jacket is fantastic. And Spartucus was great fun. However, the man isn't infallible.

I admire Kubrick because he was a risk taker. He was one of the few craftsmen in Hollywood who was given leverage to experiment and he took full advantage. In his short filmography, he worked in most genres. War, science-fiction, comedy, erotica, horror. What other director had this range? But Kubrick wasn't always successful and someone who says so is wearing blinkers to the world.

Kubrick's success as a filmmaker decreased as he aged. His masterpieces were made in the 60s - Dr Strangelove and 2001. Critics didn't know what to make of his output in the 70s - Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange - and yet, they are viewed with interest today. The 80s found Kubrick becoming less flamboyant and more routine. The Shining has a few nice touches but the film is a mess. The actors are confused and Kubrick can't do horror. Full Metal Jacket was an ordinary, often predictable Vietnam picture, saved only by the Boot Camp scenes.

That leads to Eyes Wide Shut. Helped by the best work Tom Cruise has done, Eyes Wide Shut was unfairly received by the critics and harshly treated by the censors (the cut scene is hardly threatening). It's an intelligent discussion on marriage, sex and infidelity. It was Kubrick's best work since the 70s and it proved that the film world would be less without his presence.

I think alot of people missed the important aspect of dreaming in Eyes Wide Shut. It runs throughout all Kubrick's films. A dream like logic and flow to the story that is. It may sound simple but to actually make a story have a dream like atmosphere and feel, shows amazing skill. Some filmakers try by throwing in absurd things like crazy dialogue and outlandish characters, but it doesn't have the genuine feeling of a dream. The feeling that the journey your on is led more by your emotions than logical thinking. You don't need to know exactly who everyone is in the masked orgy. The feeling it generates is enough.

I might be on my own here, but havn't you ever had dreams were you were trying to have sex with women and you would come so close but something always stopped it just at the crucial moment. Because of course when your dreaming your subconscious knows that your dreaming, and therefore takes the dream off in another direction. I think Kubrick, and most people, recognize this feeling, and this is what happens to Tom Cruise in the film. He comes so close with one women after another, descendong into more and more dream like representations of females until he reaches the pinnicale, the masked orgy and even there he can't get laid! The point is not that Kubrick (and myself) need to get laid, it's that Kubrick has always had an instinct and love of creating movies as a form of dreaming.

Nicole Kidman has a fantasy (dream) of another man. Then later she has an actual dream of having sex with other men. She doesn't actually cheat, just as Cruise doesn't but her experience is the same as his. At the end she says "all our adventures, whether real or just a dream.." I think Kubrick intends you not to know whether she's refering to her as the dream adventure and Cruise as the real adventure or if she is refering only to Cruise's experience. "whether it was real or just a dream". This very ambiguity just adds to the dream like feel of the film.

No matter how many labels, religious, political, moral, you put on life, at the end of the day know one knows what's going on and it all has a strange absurd logic to it, like a dream. We go through all these strange experiences, but what does it all mean? Bottom line, I think most great filmakers (Fellini is another example) realize the truth in dreams and try to recreate them in diffrent ways. This why I think Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece. It lived up to my dreams.

Who ever said it, it is true Kubrick fans are very devoted. As for the brief analysis I enjoyed it a lot! I guess your new, so welcome to the site

You don't complain about John Grisham always writing about lawyers etc or Dean Koontz always writing suspense. It's the same thing. Kubrick films what he wants. Range doesn't matter, directorially speaking. It may be more interesting to see a man's career as it evolves range-wise, but as far as subject matter goes...Kubrick made films about how he saw things, just like Picasso painted things as he saw them. It's that simple. Range? Directors aren't actors. Robert Zemeckis is still doing the same thing he did with Back to the Future: Hollywood popcorn movies with happy endings. I don't reject his films on that basis, and you shouldn't reject Kubrick for the same reasons.

About searching for meaning...In the case of 2001, I think the film is fascinating for the very fact that no answers are given, making the viewer draw his own conclusions. I am a firm believer that every film shouldn't be wrapped up in a little package. Sometimes things should be left to the imagination. A filmmaker can supply the answers if he wishes, but what if it's the questions that fascinate him?

I could not say anything better than what Steve has already said. He worded it perfectly. I believe I will let Steve fight this battle and if I have anything to add I will. I do this because I am lazy. By the way this is the Eyes Wide Shut site argue about the movie not the genius behind it and go off on tangents.

I think it was a great movie, from the word Go. Everything from it's eerie music to the use of colourful imagery and contrast in every scene, it can easily be said that it's one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

As for 2001, it is definitely a masterpiece, misunderstood by many. I went and saw the remastered version at the movies, you wouldn't believe what a thrill it was for me! They EVEN had an INTERMISSION of about 10 minutes half-way through the film to change reels...!!! I was in movie critic's heaven! To see 2001 in all it's glory, like it was meant to be seen! :D

Enough sentimentality and nostalgia, objectively, both of these movies are masterpieces. 2001 was revolutionary in it's concepts and ideas, and although slow at times (compared to todays standards where something has to explode every 5 minutes in order for the movie to be a hit), it gets its point accross very effectively. And although Eyes Wide Shut wasn't revolutionary, its exploration of the nature of human lust doesn't leave much to be desired...