I will say it right up front: EYES WIDE SHUT was doomed to disappoint even before its release because of one simple reason - the trailer. With a film destined to be as widely anticipated, talked about and wrapped in secrecy as the first Stanley Kubrick film in over 15 years would undoubtedly be, to preview it with just a single, erotically-charged minute or so of Tom Cruise and real-life wife Nicole Kidman groping each other naked was irreparably damaging. Such a brief glimpse sets up such high expectations that only a full-on sex romp could have possibly fulfilled all the risque material audiences dreamed up in the interim, and even worse, misrepresents what the film is ultimately about.

In fact, the scene from this near-legendary trailer is really the only time we see any sort of sexual heat or contact between Cruise and Kidman, so presenting the hottest moment of your film as the trailer may not have been a wise idea. While I don't think EYES WIDE SHUT is a perfect film by any means, I believe it would have been far less disappointing had expectations not been driven so high by over-eroticizing the film. Of course, there is no one to blame in the situation other than Stanley Kubrick himself, who oversaw just about every aspect of the film's promotional campaign until his death a few months prior to its July 1999 opening. Thus, charges made by many critics and observers that Kubrick was out of touch with the milieu he was depicting and underestimated the sexual sophistication of today's audiences may have some validity.

While not a total recluse, Kubrick has admitted to rarely if ever venturing from his English estate, and chose to shoot EYES WIDE SHUT entirely in Europe, despite the fact that it is supposed to take place in New York City. Thus, it is hard to argue against the opinion that what does a 70-ish director knows about the sexual and social dilemmas facing 30-somethings in today's modern America? To be sure, the cinema of Stanley Kubrick came of age in the 60's and 70's, and often EYES WIDE SHUT feels like a throwback to that era, and quite frankly it is neither shocking nor particularly revelatory. Once again, the trailer may have been a bit misleading in promising a full-blown examination of sexual infidelity and the disintegration of an American marriage.

However, I still quite liked the film despite its faults, especially the first half. I thought Kubrick managed a playful, tantalizing setup. Cruise and Kidman play a married couple with a beautiful daughter, who would seem to have everything: money, good looks and a close circle of friends. Still, something is lacking in the marriage. At a dinner party at the beginning of the film, the couple both flirt openly with members of the opposite sex, and later that night Kidman makes the startling admission of recurring thoughts of infidelity, which sends Cruise off into a night of guilt, sexual dread and eventually murder. Certainly, on the surface, this seems exciting, and for the first fourth especially I was intrigued.

Then, as Cruise descends into the New York night life to probe the nature of his jealousy and sexual appetite, the Kidman character is largely dropped while Cruise meets up with a variety of interesting characters. The film then begins to play like a Euro-art version of AFTER HOURS, and I was still largely engaged. But by the time the now-infamous orgy scene arrives midway through, the film changes course a bit and becomes what Kubrick seems to intend as a thriller. Admittedly, I didn't particularly enjoy the last half of EYES WIDE SHUT very much, as the complications that ensue are neither particularly thrilling nor exciting, and the absence of Kidman is a major detriment. But, I enjoyed the largely humorous and almost lighthearted denouncement, and though I don't think the film has anything particularly revolutionary to say, I still found plenty to like and discuss in the film.

In the interest of space (hey, this is DVDFILE, not Film Comment), I'll cut it short and get on with the disc review. But I'll just say there will be plenty of people who won't like this film. Kubrick's rhythms, pacing and approach are very adult, methodical and slow (which some could successfully argue is an antithesis to eroticism). This is bound to be a turnoff in today's fast-cut, Matrix-driven special effects culture, but I found it refreshing to see a filmmaker singlemindedly stick to his vision, box office be damned. Though perhaps not the feather in the cap many hoped it would be, EYES WIDE SHUT remains a respectable end to an amazing career.

Video: How Does The Disc Look?

Presented only in full frame at the request of Kubrick, the image is overall very good. However, it is worth noting that the film was shot intentionally in a very high-contrast, low-level style which significantly increases the graininess of the image. This is often called "pushing" the film stock, thereby slightly overexposing certain brighter parts of the film. Since I'm a fan of 70's style cinematography, I'm partial to this look, and enjoyed Kubrick's European, classical style approach to the lighting. It is a credit to Warner that there was no noticeable artifacting in the picture despite the long runtime of the film and the grainy image. Colors are very rich and saturated, black level spot on and fleshtones accurate, though the stylized lighting makes this hard to discern to be honest. Still, a very nice picture.

Of course, the big controversy here is the lack of an anamorphic widescreen transfer of the film. There really isn't much I can say about it...I have no idea the exact nature of the contracts between the Kubrick Estate and Warner, but in any case, obviously I'd like to see an anamorphic widescreen version in the theatrical 1.85:1 ratio someday. With HDTV set sales rising, the future is widescreen, and inevitably one day Warner will most likely have to make a HDTV widescreen master, or release it if they've done one already. I guess I'll just have to wait...

Audio: How Does The Disc Sound?

This is one of the few Kubrick films to benefit from a 5.1 mix. However, given the mostly intimate and interior nature of the film, it is not particularly aggressive or directional. The surrounds are used infrequently, though there just isn't much going on sonically here regardless. The orgy scene has some nice effects, but for the most part this might as well have been 2.0 stereo. However, the soundtrack itself is very good, with dialogue clear, frequency range wide and about average bass response. There is no audible hiss or distortion, though some of the music selections sound a bit thin.

There are no foreign language tracks provided, though there are English Closed Captions and English and Spanish subtitles inlcuded.

Supplements: What Goodies Are There?

Though not a full-blown special edition, there are some brief interviews with Stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman reflecting upon their experience working with Kubrick, as well as some nice reflections from Steven Spielberg on his friendship and admiration of the director. While these interviews are short on production specifics and bereft of making-of footage, they are heartfelt, and I suppose this is nice acknowledge of the Kubrick legacy. (Hey, did Kubrick approve this?) In addition to the interviews, there is the aforementioned theatrical trailer and two TV spots.

Of course, the biggest controversy here is the lack of the uncut version that was shown everywhere else in the world except the United States. In order to receive an R-rating from the MPAA, Kubrick voluntarily agreed (by all published reports) to digitally alter 65 seconds out of the orgy scene, adding in shadows to parts of the frame to obscure more graphic material. In all honesty, and though I of course would like to see the unexpurgated version, I have a feeling that if American audiences are to ever see the uncut version, it would be very anticlimactic. Still, I am at a loss to explain why there is no unrated version of this movie available in the United States. It is, after all only 65 seconds. But if is not such a big deal, why not just show it? Sigh.

Parting Thoughts

While the film largely divided audiences and critics, it is still an important final epitaph to the career of Stanley Kubrick. If you missed it in the theaters, I feel it is worth seeing on DVD, and any serious scholar of Kubrick of course will pick it up. While I would like to see the unrated version and an anamorphic transfer some day, this will have to do in the interim.