User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 139 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 14 out of 139

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 6, 2014
    10
    How can someone give a 20 score in this movie, this is the REAL DRAMA, it is scary, the music makes you fell afraid of what is gonna happen, this movie is just perfect, Stanley Kubrick is a genius!
  2. Mar 24, 2014
    6
    Perhaps I need to watch this again. Roger Ebert said it best; "the reconciliation at the end of the film is the one scene that does not work." And he was right, it felt like they had to tie up any loose ends and they had to do it fast as this film was approaching two and half hours. This needs to be watched with some effort as it will be difficult to understand for many. However, the moviePerhaps I need to watch this again. Roger Ebert said it best; "the reconciliation at the end of the film is the one scene that does not work." And he was right, it felt like they had to tie up any loose ends and they had to do it fast as this film was approaching two and half hours. This needs to be watched with some effort as it will be difficult to understand for many. However, the movie is very well done but has its faults. It is an average film with score of 57.1 out of 100. Expand
  3. Jan 19, 2014
    9
    This movie is a bold expose of the Satanic secret societies of the uber-wealthy in the United States. To find out the story behind this movie, start researching; bohemian grove, bilderberg group, house of rothschild, Skull & Bones, freemasons.
    To give you an example of how exclusive these Satanic societies are, just remember that in the movie, Harford was an M.D. and even he was nowhere
    This movie is a bold expose of the Satanic secret societies of the uber-wealthy in the United States. To find out the story behind this movie, start researching; bohemian grove, bilderberg group, house of rothschild, Skull & Bones, freemasons.
    To give you an example of how exclusive these Satanic societies are, just remember that in the movie, Harford was an M.D. and even he was nowhere near the level of these others. Poolroom scene: Victor: "I couldn't even BEGIN to figure out how you had ever even HEARD of us.., let alone have the password..."
    The scenes depicted and described by Kubick are very real. The "security measures" and protocols are much more strict than suggested when one female member is apparently killed in compensation for Harford's intrusion, but the scene made for good theatre. Of course, an "outsider", like Nick, would never have been allowed anywhere near one of these groups, but again, it was a clever theatrical portal into the activities of the group.
    After Harford walks through the halls and rooms of the mansion, he is commanded to "...never tell anyone what he has seen". This suggests something very illegal and very taboo. Here, we are talking about the pedophilic Satanic underground of the Zionist-controlled, globalist, multi-national corporation heads: Pool room scene: Victor: "If you knew their names, and I'm not going to give you their names, you wouldn't sleep very well at night..." These activities also involve breeding, slavery, human trafficking and human sacrifice.
    Kubric was probably well-aware that he was stepping on some toes by writing, producing and directing this film. Those types of groups alluded to in the film were probably quite aware of the project before its completing, as well, because much of the entertainment industry is owned by large, multi-national corporations. The scene(s) at the costume-fitters shop (with the under-age female being prostituted) were a deft allusion to what Hanford saw on his walking tour of the mansion.
    A bold and important film, and one that Kubrick may have lost his life over: he died of a "heart attack" after showing the final-cut movie once: To the main actors at a private exhibition.
    Personally, I think Cruise's (and Kidman's) acting was perfect. Hanford's integrity, moderation and logic was a cool counterpoint to the thick and ominous intrigue that increasingly threatened him and his world.
    Expand
  4. Nov 25, 2013
    10
    I love this movie. The more you watch it the more you see/learn and reveal. You have to study about it and re-watch it. At face value, most people may not "get it" or recognize the subtleties or symbology and dialogue. It's a master work and Kubrick is an amazing director. When his movies are on, you just know it's "Kubrick". This is one of those dozen or so movies, I can't take myI love this movie. The more you watch it the more you see/learn and reveal. You have to study about it and re-watch it. At face value, most people may not "get it" or recognize the subtleties or symbology and dialogue. It's a master work and Kubrick is an amazing director. When his movies are on, you just know it's "Kubrick". This is one of those dozen or so movies, I can't take my eyes off if I flip channels and find it playing (Kubrick's other movies are on that list too: 2001, The shining, etc). There are so many messages in the movie and subplots, you just have to study it, watch it, pause video to read the signs throughout the movie and discover all the other hidden messages within that Kubrick painstakingly put in there for the viewer to see.
    I "liked" it in the theater...more for the fantasy, imagery, music and cinematography, but the more I learn about it, the more I love it. Same things can be said for "The Shining" and others. I hated "A clockwork Orange", but have since come to enjoy it after further viewings. None are movies you can fully take at face value.
    Expand
  5. Jan 6, 2013
    4
    Kubrick finally went to the place that he has always bordered on. A pit of nonsense due too a plot that doesn't begin or end and nudity to a point where I just thought, Okay it is not possible to have that much naked in one room. Creepy and cool build up to a wreck of a inapplicable ending.
  6. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    Pretty awesome if you examine it closely. But sucks if you just take it at face value. Like Shakespeare in that way.

    I just watched it again, and read Introducing Sociology A Review of Eyes Wide Shut by Tim Kreider It's such a great review of the movie's reviews (and it's free and online, though originally from "Film Quarterly".) I just had to come here and, I see, finally (over 2
    Pretty awesome if you examine it closely. But sucks if you just take it at face value. Like Shakespeare in that way.

    I just watched it again, and read Introducing Sociology
    A Review of Eyes Wide Shut
    by Tim Kreider It's such a great review of the movie's reviews (and it's free and online, though originally from "Film Quarterly".) I just had to come here and, I see, finally (over 2 years after joining) post my first review in order to mention it - it's such a great read-perhaps better than the movie itself.

    It's pretty awesome to see how a thorough analysis makes such a mockery of the run-of-the-mill reviewer's reviews - those from the New York times and Washington Post.

    The movie is chock full of masterful iconography. While I missed little of the visual symbology, such as the use of spaciousness, and evil symbology, I didn't pick up on most of the linguistic symbols, from witty names like that of the profligate "Doctor Bill" and ruling class "Victor" to the commercial signage.

    The greatest strength of the film is the social criticism angle - like 'Pig Hunt', which I played a tiny part in producing. It lays bare an exquisite panorama of crassness and wretchedness, like pig adorned in diamonds and pearls.

    Somehow, the acting was believable and I was drawn into the movie, even as the characters came across as the flattened sterotypes that Kubrick clearly wanted.
    Expand
  7. May 6, 2012
    9
    Eyes Wide Shut is impressive cinematic work. Maybe it's not Kubrick's masterpiece but the its two lead has a charm, especially the conversation between them on the bed. **** Probably but everything is there.
  8. Jan 16, 2012
    0
    Stanley Kubrick, a famous director, turns into a dirty old man before he dies. This movie is probably about his own fantasies. It is just sickening. What is the point of this movie ? It is not even interesting. Every man has fantasies about sexual experiences with other women, and on a daily basis. What else is new ?
  9. Nov 27, 2011
    7
    Kubrick's final twist film. but The last film Kubrick, not of the best films... however i like many startling visuals and great use of music ...but I just wish this story had been given more capable hands to mold it. Kubrick, Kidman, and Cruise have nearly ruined what could have been a much better movie
  10. Sep 26, 2011
    10
    Ever wonder what the real drama? what a drama movie? Eyes Wide Shut is the perfect example of drama, fear, obsession, passion, etc. Perhaps as the movie progresses you are wondering, what does this have to do? but this is one of those films that eventually will show that every action has a reaction
  11. Aug 25, 2011
    5
    Eyes Wide Shut is an amazing tapestry of ideas. But, alas, as a film, it fails. The problem is not solely due to the awkward performances by Cruise and Kidman, but actually due to Kubrick's own direction. While a master of mis-en-scene, atmosphere, and visuals, Kubrick has always been an emotionally distant director. This is probably due to Kubrick's own personality, but his misanthropicEyes Wide Shut is an amazing tapestry of ideas. But, alas, as a film, it fails. The problem is not solely due to the awkward performances by Cruise and Kidman, but actually due to Kubrick's own direction. While a master of mis-en-scene, atmosphere, and visuals, Kubrick has always been an emotionally distant director. This is probably due to Kubrick's own personality, but his misanthropic tendencies work in films like Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and Paths of Glory, due to his understanding of craft and touch for cold feeling that isolates the viewer when it is supposed to. He is emotionally distant in a good way, like a Radiohead song. But while Kubrick's tactics of isolation worked in films with cold feelings and misanthropy, it fails in Eyes Wide Shut. The film is supposed to be about the inner-workings of the human brain, and specifically, the part that can bring out intense emotions. The problem is Kubrick seems so disinterested in his own characters, as well as Cruise and Kidman, that to connect emotionally, which a character study needs, fails. It is a vast pool of ideas, but nothing to string them together. Expand
  12. Apr 9, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film was very blame in its firsts years, someone says that its the most simple project of Kubrick. Es, anyway, a wonderful movie, very similar of the films that the director did in his first works. In my opinion, the two and something hours that this movie longs, are pretty short, because it ends of a very cut way, but also very mystical, and we don't know if what the doctor have seen was just a dream or it was really what happened. Charming sensual Expand
  13. JLO
    Nov 22, 2010
    10
    El director de solo obras maestras se salió con la suya de nuevo. Su última obra lo encontró tan genial, hosco y detallista como siempre. Las actuaciones también fueron obra suya. Salud KubricK!
  14. Oct 23, 2010
    10
    Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut is a deeply profound film that blankets reality with eroticism like a dark glaucoma of the mind and is the closing of perhaps a perfect filmography of an old master always trying to change the form.
  15. Aug 27, 2010
    10
    "Eyes Wide Shut" is one of those movies that reaffirms the study of film - it's a masterpiece that gets better with every viewing; if you didn't like it the first time, watch it again and you're bound to find something new.
Metascore
68

Generally favorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 33
  2. Negative: 4 out of 33
  1. Makes its strongest impression not with dialogue but with virtuoso visual work…. when you work with Kubrick, it's always the director, never the actors, who is the real star. That can lead a film up or down or, as it does here, in both directions at the same time. [16 July 1999, Calendar, p.F-1]
  2. This is a remarkably gripping, suggestive, and inventive piece of storytelling that, like Kubrick's other work, is likely to grow in mystery and intensity over time.
  3. Totally absorbing even when it, too, strays.