Eyes Wide Shut Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x1080 | 8801.38 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 6720.43 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x524 | 1933.68 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x432 | 1245.14 MiB | divx | |
|
320x232 | 490.67 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Cruise. Kidman. Kubrick.
Sexual jolts disrupt Manhattan physician Bill Harford's equilibrium. At an elegant Christmas party, two "models" hit on him, he watches a Lothario try to pick up his tipsy wife, he aids a woman sprawled naked in a bathroom after an overdose. The next night, his wife reveals sexual fantasies with a stranger; a dead patient's daughter throws herself at him; as he walks, brooding, six teen boys hurl homophobic insults at him; a streetwalker takes him to her flat; he interrupts men having a sex party with a girl barely in her teens. His odyssey, which next takes him into a world of wealthy sex play at a masked ball of hedonism, threatens his life, his self-respect, and his marriage.
| Tom Cruise | Dr. William 'Bill' Harford |
| Alan Cumming | |
| Nicole Kidman | Alice Harford |
| Vinessa Shaw | |
| Rade Serbedzija | |
| Sydney Pollack | Victor Ziegler |
| Todd Field | Nick Nightingale |
| Sky Dumont | Sandor Szavost |
| Fay Masterson | |
| Leelee Sobieski | |
| Madison Eginton | Helena Harford |
| Jackie Sawiris | Roz |
| Leslie Lowe | Illona Ziegler |
| Peter Benson | Bandleader |
| Michael Doven | Ziegler's Secretary |
| Louise J. Taylor | Gayle |
| Stewart Thorndike | Nuala |
| Randall Paul | Harris |
| Julienne Davis | Amanda 'Mandy' Curran |
| Lisa Leone | Lisa |
| Stanley Kubrick |
7.00 out of 10 (43765 votes)
Visitor Reviews
a subtle, intelligent seamless piece of art.
posted on 30 Aug 2009watching this movie is like watching a good book. It is a nearly seamless movie. the fluidity of the camerawork and editing makes it seem that from the opening shot until the final line is one scene. which is excellent because it accentuates the intellectual and emontional journey of tom cruise through his own sexuality. it uses such simple literary and cinematic devices such as contrast, symbolism, color symbolism, the dream, and masking, yet all these "simple" devices are done masterfully by kubrick. amazing, simply amazing
A disturbing yet brilliant look at jealousy and sexual obsession and a tribute to the greatest genius of our time.
posted on 28 Aug 2009Eyes Wide Shut is a true tribute to the best director of this century. After bringing us such brilliance as Paths of Glory, 2001: A Space Oddyssey, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket and The Shining, Kubrick goes all out to make his most intriguing film yet. The "tale of jealousy and sexual obsession" is the most fascinating piece of film I've seen since A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick spends the first moments of the film portraying the perfect lives of rich doctor Tom Cruise and his unemployed wife Nicole Kidman. Every single scene in the movie has some way of exploring our sexuality from the well orchestrated orgy scene to the apparently pointless scene where a group of boys call Cruise a faggot. After he finds out that his wife came close to having an affair, he goes for a walk through the street at night where he comes across some incidents which would change him forever. Cruise is terrific from his psychotic deep stares into space from the darkly lit back seat of his taxi to his usual overacting which actually gives this cold, disturbing, humourless tale a human side. Kidman is equally brilliant as her seductive eyes stare out of the screen defining herself and her husband as some of the finest actors of their generation. Every incident sparks with a Christamas tree and in some way explores sex. It may be the scene in which the gay hotel receptionist flirts with Cruise or the disturbing moment where we find out the costume store owner pimps his daughter, but each scene is as disturbing, intriguing and amazingly lit as the last. Cruise's journey is portrayed in a trance-like nightmare, especially the notorius (uncut in Ireland) orgy scene which is magnificent in every sense. The cult is disturbing, frightening and dangerous (a masked woman tells Cruise to "go now while he still can") but also plays a large part in the movie as Cruise discovers just what goes on inside. The music is haunting and perfect whether it is the chilling solo pianist or the dizzying "shining-esque" trance. A scary and disturbing exploration into the sexual obsessions of humans. Watch out for the Kubrick cameo (he's sitting at a table in a restaurant). Truly a magnificent modern masterpiece which is a tribute to who is definetely the greatest genius of cinema ever.
Loved it!
posted on 22 Aug 2009My eyes were wide open throughout Eyes Wide Shut! I rate this film a 10 out of 10. Academy Award caliber. It is Rated R but I would have rated it X. It makes one pause and think about the strong influence of sexuality in our lives. It held my interest from start to finish and I was surprised to see it was 2 hours and 45 minutes long. A fascinating and suspenseful movie that I plan to see again. I will also have fun finding the Christmas tree in each scene. An excellent vehicle for a husband and wife team like Nicole and Tom. They were fabulous.... especially Nicole. {:-) May Director Stanley Kubrick rest in peace. He died at age 70 in March 1999 shortly before the movie was released. Eyes Wide Shut is a fitting finale for this movie making genius. Review by Ed of Aberdeen 8-8-99
I AM THE NEXT KUBRICK
posted on 20 Aug 2009actually thats a lie.there will never be another kubrick. i can only hope one day no one gets what i try to do and yet they keep paying me to do it. kubrick was like such fine wine getting better with every year. the reason people hated this movie is because they resent kubrick for what he did in 2001. he made them listen to nietzshe whether they wanted to or not. no one like to pay for a kick in the balls and thus the world of unintellectual christian camels hated fight club. they run around waving flags of their virtue and then they go home molest their children and rage about how directors are ruining the youth of america. while all of yall are really understanding the sexual aspect of the movie there is also a much larger aspect to this movie. that aspect is the celit-pagan sex ritual that they perform in the mansion. now paganism is directly related to freemasonry. if u noticed everyone at the mansion was a very wealthy man. so it was millionaires having animal annonymous sex with hookers and other various miscarriages.then when an outsider enters he is to be murdered. he is spared but why is this all so top secret. in order to get into the movie i think you would have to look into what freemasonry is all about and how it dictates the front pages of headlines everyday. i think kubrick was telling that story the most discrete way he could. in true showman fashion he dies immediately after this film or maybe even during it.we love u stanley where ever you are
You can tell from the first twenty minutes that it was going to be a letdown
posted on 08 Aug 2009I am a big fan of most of Stanley Kubricks work and there were flashes of his earlier greatness,but this movie was a truly BAD movie.The plot went no-where,Nicole Kidman was horrible and well,I was never a fan of Tom (everybody wants to have sex with me )Cruise.It was like an uphill bike ride the whole way through....waiting for something to happen...it never did!
"So…shall we?"
posted on 08 Aug 2009I have a feeling that Kubrick's stunningly masterful visual exploration of human sexuality will be overshadowed by the major amount of nudity in it, and the graphic sex scenes. It seems that the movie is more well-known because Nicole Kidman is fully nude in it (and Tom Cruise, conspicuously, is heavily covered, even his hands, throughout), despite the fact that she was fully nude in Billy Bathgate back in 1991 but no one cares much about that. Maybe she wasn't famous enough back then. At any rate, she is nude within literally about the first 5 seconds of the film, when we meet her and her husband Dr. Bill Harford. They have been invited to a classy dinner party which illustrates their place in society, and we meet them as they are getting ready to go out. Clearly, they live a very good life, seemingly much more than even a doctor could afford, given that they live in New York in a sizable mansion. They have been married and faithful to each other for 9 years, have a beautiful 7- year-old daughter, and a very comfortable home. Life is secure, but even in this opening scene, there is an undercurrent of something missing, almost as though they are just going through the motions of their marriage. Alice (Kidman) laments that Bill blandly tells her she looks great without even looking at her, and Bill isn't too excited about the party at all.But the real problem with their marriage is presented in a way that only Kubrick could come up with. Cruise and Kidman are beautiful people, so it's easy to accept a classy older man being extremely direct with his interest in a romp with Alice ("then and there," as she explains later), and that two stunningly beautiful women will attempt to seduce Bill, all at about the same time. Neither is unfaithful, but this event sets off a chain reaction that leads them down an alarming road. Later, when Alice asks Bill if he had sex with those two women (in much more colorful language than I am allowed here), he sort of laughs it off and assures her that he did not. What he doesn't notice at first is that she doesn't seem the least bit upset or worried when she asks him this, she seems blithely interested, even curious, as though part of her hopes that he did, which would allow her to form some kind of justification in her own mind about being unfaithful herself, something that she has clearly thought about. When she hears that he didn't, she's not very happy, and she lashes out at him with a story that creeps into his mind and turns his life upside down. She has always been faithful to him, but she tells him a story of something that happened that might have been even worse.A lot of people criticize the movie for how slow it is in a sad misunderstanding of one of the movie's greatest strengths. It has a strange, dream-like quality that derives from its pacing, and this is not an accident, nor is it meant just to make the movie run as long as it is. And it is not about sex, either. This should be obvious, I think. Sex happens in the movie, but it's not about sex, but sexuality. The difference is bigger than you think. It's about the fact that humans are essentially animals with very primal physical needs, but we lift ourselves above beasts by controlling those desires and channeling them into meaningful relationships. This, the movie seems to suggest, is one of the reasons why an unfaithful spouse is such a crippling blow to someone. The most moral and sacred pact of the marriage has been broken.More specifically, it seems to suggest a human desire (amidst both males and females) for anonymous sex, in the sequence where Bill manages to get into the mansion and witness this taking place, and the vicious threats that he receives when he is discovered. A lot of people have called this a dream sequence, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since it is so clearly not. It's bizarre, yes, but I didn't notice anything that would suggest very strongly that it's a dream, outside of the allowance for this possibility. It may have just been left open to that possibility to provoke discussion, but it works better as a real experience than as a dream. Later, Alice confesses a real dream, which is disturbingly close to what Bill saw at that house, and it is a tremendous blow to him.It should be noted that the movie goes to great lengths to explore the trust in a marriage, and both parties are desperately hurt by what the other has said or done, yet neither of them were ever unfaithful to the other. The performances are phenomenal throughout, and made better by an astonishingly well-written script. You may notice, as the movies nears the end, that remarkably little actually happens in it, and yet the movie says so much. It makes a striking comment about the role of sex in a relationship, and yet never exploits it. Sadly, a lot of moviegoers are too shortsighted or narrow-minded to understand the film, which is why you get people saying it's the worst thing that Kubrick has ever come out with. It is very normal for a person to condemn as ridiculous something that they can't understand, and this will happen with this movie. But make no mistake, the movie is brilliant, and more than a worthy addition to Kubrick's short but powerful iconography
This film will make money!
posted on 04 Aug 2009People will definitely go see this film, primarily for the attraction of screen hunk Tom Cruise and his wife Nicole Kidman getting up to some sexual mischief. These same people will also never have heard of Stanley Kubrick either.
These are the same people who when asked what they think of a film, their answer is always one of the following; it was in black and white, it has subtitles and it was long. It was long is the main response this film gets, for me the pacing was fantastic. I only wish it WAS longer. If you want to hear me call a film long, go watch Michaelangelo Antonioni's "The Passenger" As for Kubrick he knew what he was doing when he cast these two actors, and it wasn't only for box-office profits. Here we have a film about a relationship, one that is based on truth and honesty. Should couples tell their partners everything about themselves? or is it better to keep some things secret? In the real world Tom and Nicole are superstars. The mediahound them and their fans want a piece of them. Along comes Kubrick with his fictional tale of a stable relationship, which unwantingly takes a direction in which the couple learn more about each other in one weekend than they have in nine years of marriage. This is a film that is so real and honest about human relationships and our partners, that it is no wonder that a newspaper was sued by Tom and Nicole by suggesting that this film sent them to a marriage councillor to fix up their marriage. You know what I think. After spending two years with Kubrick, I think it would put anyone into councilling. THE film of the 90's.
Love it or hate it...
posted on 31 Jul 2009This film seems to polarize people as no other film does. In all instances when I have asked friends about it, they don't understand the film. I don't either. I never will. But it doesn't keep me from loving the film. As I do with "Barry Lyndon", I keep returning to this film finding new things to puzzle over. That, to me, is what makes a Kubrick film stand apart from others.But to some, this lack of easy comprehension makes them a little angry. If they can't easily understand a story - i.e. - they can't explain it to themselves easily, they say "hate it." Kubrick, more than any other director, made films that told stories as only film can tell. His films can't be reduced to words. Once a person understands this point, Kubrick's films, and the films of many other talented directors, take on a new depth.So if you are a person who has seen the film and hated it, try it again.
Brilliant
posted on 29 Jul 2009Spectacular... it is funny how I always see mediocre reviews of Kubrick movies. You love them, hate them, or don't get them. The person who doesn't get the movie is the person who gives it 2 stars. Amazing, captivating, go see this movie. It is a fascinating odyssey Kubrick style (with lots of images to portray feelings). This is definitely a classic. It seems that all classics are misunderstood at the box office. What a great final movie. It left me breathless. The offbeat strange adventure reminded me sort of Apocalypse Now. Oh yes, I forgot to mention Nicole Kidman is absolutely gorgeous. Go out and see this movie. Now.**** stars out of ****. (10 out of 10)Recommendations: Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, and the Shining.
Keep your eyes firmly shut and your ears too
posted on 25 Jul 2009When I went to see this movie, I noticed that there were a lot of young men, far more than usual, in the theatre. All lured by the hype I suppose. The hype turned out to be a hoax, as far as I am concerned, but a very funny one. I nearly smothered myself while trying to suppress laughing during the movie so that I was glad that there was a break during which I could catch my breath. Boy oh boy,what a facade of seriousness, give me a break. The piano score was highly irritating, but again added to my fun. Frankly, I cannot think of more to say about this movie, cause nothing more happened on screen. They did a bad, bad thing.... More accurately would be they thought of doing a bad, bad thing, and they thought of it rather slowly. Definitely one for the fast forward!!!
Apalling
posted on 23 Jul 2009I can't remember at the moment who said (or wrote) that a director, when he ceases to be an artist, becomes a photographer, but this movie amply proves it. Gorgeous to look at, it's nothing but a moving Playboy centerfold; no real sexuality, just empty echoes of it. The only good thing about it is the choice of both leading actors - they are just as plastic as they were obviously supposed to be.There is one real drama here - the tragedy of Kubrick the old man. I don't think it would be hard to explain and analyze it, but I am not going to try; I respect Kubrick far too much for all the great movies that kept inspiring me through many a decade. This one only made me sad.
An apt warning for any movie goer
posted on 21 Jul 2009Eyes Wide Shut could best describe the caveat for this film. Small wonder Kubrick died a short while after; he saw the final cut. The acting is horrendous, the editing bizarre and the soundtrack unbearable. How much of a naked Nicole Kidman does it take to support a go nowhere movie? The dialogue is trite as is Cruise's so-called acting. Kidman also fails to be convincing. This movie deserves a decent burial if for nothing else but to honor Kubrick's past works.
Kubrick's Best?
posted on 15 Jul 2009Wow! This movie is incredible. I saw it with little information about it. I avoided the previews and plot outlines so I could judge for myself the quality of the movie. Few times does a movie come along that evokes such emotion. I'm talking suspense. Being scared of what might happen next and letting your imagination run away with you is half the fun of seeing this film.
Holy Cows!!!
posted on 13 Jul 2009Stanley Kubrick's final masterpiece was one of the most amazing films I've seen in the last 15 years. As I watched it, pools of saliva soaked the tops of my tennis shoes. I was drop-jawwed through out the entire viewing. I think the saddest thing about Kubrick's death is knowing that he isn't alive, creating and working on films. The feeling I had during the production of Eyes Wide Shut was so great, what a feeling of knowing he was behind the camera once again.
One of the 10 best movies of the decade.
posted on 09 Jul 2009Being a huge fan of Kubrick, I was expecting this movie to be a great one and, I really wasn't disappointed at all. This movie is a very complicated and weird one with strange twists and a great psychological evolution for each one of the two main characters. Tom Cruise is pretty good and Nicole Kidman is great in her role but, what is important to remember is that, this movie is a Stanley Kubrick movie and therefore, is not accessible for everyone. If you are expecting your average movie where all the answers are given or if you don't want to think about what is going on, don't see this movie. But, if you're in the market for an interesting psychological drama with great cinematography and a good script, then, see this movie. That is all I've got to say....
Amazing
posted on 09 Jul 2009Such an amazing film, so full of information and portrayed so beautifully (visually and mentally). By far one of the best films of the year, and perhaps in the top 5 of Kubrick's films. There is so much to say, but I think i would rather urge you to view the film yourself rather than take ones word for it. It's incredible grasp over you never seems to let you down,I sat through the credits just staring at the screen thinking about its content. It is so unforgiving and powerful, in the tradition of all his other films. You must see this important film and if you don't get the message, watch it again. The film is extremely insightful, in such an original and artistic way, only Kubrick could create this atmosphere that engulfs your thought, emotion and senses in such a way.
One of Kubrick's finest
posted on 09 Jul 2009Anytime that you walk into the theater to see a Stanley Kubrick film you know to expect something unusual and exciting. Eyes Wide Shut is no exception. The storyline is gripping to the end, and leaves you thinking well after the movie is over. Excellent use of lighting and music add so much texture to the already strong story. Bizarre twists and compelling acting by Tom Cruise will keep you entertained until the credits roll. Fantastic movie!
Monumentally disappointing study in sexual confusion
posted on 05 Jul 2009Considering the time and talent, a complete waste of time and money by all concerned. We struggled through the downtown traffic to catch an early evening showing and were sorely disappointed that we'd bothered. The advance plot details turned out to be largely spurious and the trailer is fairly unrepresentative of what the film is about. Tom Cruise fails again to offer any evidence of major-league acting talent to back up his pay packet and Nicole Kidman was a huge disappointment after To Die For and Dead Calm, almost sleepwalking her way through the very overlong film. The plot can charitably described as slimline and the weighty themes and important points hit the screen with an almost audible clang - possibly trying to complete with the plinking minimalist piano soundtrack. There were some good scenes and nicely played moments and an effectively captured sense of naturalism though lack of background score and flat/static single camera setups, but these were lost in the landslide of disappointment. I spent the last thirty minutes of the film trying to think of a cast and director who could have done a more efficient, tighter and more entertaining job and came up with at least 5 other candidates. Not a fitting end to a true independant maverick.
What was Stanley Kubrick trying to do?
posted on 05 Jul 2009Review of Eyes Wide Shut by Clarise SamuelsWhen a great director dies just before he releases his last film, it makes it hard for the critics to tear it to pieces. But in the minds of many viewers, Eyes Wide Shut was so boring and so difficult to grasp, even the untimely death of the legendary Kubrick was not enough to redeem it. What was Stanley Kubrick trying to do with this film? Having just seen the video, I'm going to venture my opinion.The film was loosely based (or "inspired") by Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle (Dream Novella). Schnitzler, an Austrian playwright (1862-1931), was influenced by Naturalism, Impressionism, and Expressionism. The Naturalists incorporated realistic literary themes that were previously not acceptable, such as alcoholism or suicide. From the Impressionists, Schnitzler became enchanted with the portrayal of passing moods and transient moments. The Expressionists desired to explore an inner reality, such as the shadowy underside of the human soul and most particularly the devastating effects of the human sex drive. Freud was teaching and publishing in Vienna during this period, and Schnitzler was attracted to the exploration of dreams and the unconscious.Kubrick understood this Germanic quest to explore the dark side of human nature, and he was apparently enchanted with the artsy theatrical techniques used to create moods and impressions rather than action and conflict. I believe this is what he was after in Eyes Wide Shut. The theme is entirely based on dark, hidden sexuality--an upper-class couple (unsuccessfully transferred from late 19th-century Vienna to modern New York City), who are presumably happy, are plunged into a crisis when the wife (Kidman) candidly describes her secret lust for a stranger, who had temporarily swept her off her feet because of a casual encounter. This terrible confession unleashes a devastating reaction in the very bourgeois husband (Cruise), who prides himself on being a good husband, father, and doctor. Haunted by dreamlike images of his wife making love to another man, he takes to the streets at night, walking through dangerous and uncharted territory that corresponds to the sexuality that has been triggered by his unconscious.First Cruise has to visit the apartment of a friend who has just died; there, in the same room as the deathbed, the daughter of the deceased suddenly falls upon him, professing a secret lust for him that she has hidden for years. (This is a very Schnitzler-like moment, but out of context, Kubrick couldn't pull it off.) The good doctor, quite shaken, then resumes seeking refuge in the street late at night, where he finds himself roughed up by hoodlums, negotiating the cost of sex with a prostitute in a sleazy apartment house, and last but not least, ending up at a weird ritualistic orgy, where good citizens could play out their most obscene sexual fantasies, while hiding behind elaborate masks.Kubrick didn't seem to know where to take this Freudian odyssey, and the innocent doctor stumbles around, flirting with danger and having long conversations with a lot of people, but somehow emerges unscathed, as if at the end, he finally awakens from a dream. I could see why people who are not scholars of Arthur Schnitzler were left sitting in the theatre saying "Huh?" if indeed they were still awake. But when understood in the context of German literature as a psychological exploration of moods and moments, the film becomes a noble failure, rather than a mind-boggling failure.
some telling reactions...worth thinking about
posted on 30 Aug 2009Having read through several of the comments, I have the impression that Kubrick has hit a nerve so sensitive that half the people who hate the film don't even realize how they've been hit.It occurred to me that Kubrick just might have been clever enough to also use that orgy scene as a representation of the movie audience and everyone who might be in it. Among the almost human masks are the Bosch-like monsters, leering, waiting for a vicarious thrill when Tom Cruise is unmasked and told to disrobe...nah, Kubrick wouldn't be THAT clever, would he?I mean, it's almost as if he's not only staged the orgy, he's staged everything surrounding the film, teasing, playing on people's expectations...and then making a film about THAT.Actually, I thought of Conrad's Heart of Darkness (or Copolla's Apocalypse Now) when pondering the structure and meaning of the film. You have to wonder what line is or is not being crossed here, or what line people pretend to cross but really don't.Anyway, I don't think the film is "about" marital fidelity. It's about something much more interesting.