The Joker (2019)

 A short review.  Its well acted and the set design (recreating a dingy 70s NY type city)  was quite well done. But  I stopped watching after one hour. Too depressing. Too dark.  Too much mental illness.  And what's the point? This isn't real life. Its a Comic book character!  I watch movies to enjoy myself - not suffer.  For those who do, this might be what they want. Rating **

Blade Runner 2049

 A short review.  Great visuals.  Good world building.  Poor Script.  Dull Characters.  3 Hours of pretty pictures - and not much else. 

Eyes Wide Shut

 Kubrick's last film  Based on the 1926 Arthur Schnitzler novella "Rhapsody" adapted for the Screen by Frederick Raphael.  Its unclear exactly why Kubrick was drawn to this story. But he follows the novella's plot closely - except for moving the story to NYC 1991*. After a fight with his wife, a NYC Doctor visits a prostitute and gets involved in a secret society.  Beautifully photographed with a nude Nicole Kidman, the film is a visual delight and a triumph of set design. 

Unfortunately, the story is dull, the screenplay witless, and the characters unengaging. To offset two unlikable lead characters, Kubrick casts Superstars in the roles.  Who cares if they're self-absorbed,  vulgar, dope-smoking yuppies?  Its Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman!  Other flaws: The film's far too long for the thin story (30 minutes could be cut), and Kubrick compounds the lack of plot by having everyone talk extremely slow and giving us dull filler scenes of  Cruise walking around,  ordering coffee, and knocking on doors.

The Acting

Kubrick was never known for his skill with actors.  Unlike say, Welles or Kazan, its hard to remember a Kubrick movie where the actors have a substantial, memorable dramatic interchange. Kubrick's focus is usually on the action and if there's any verbal fireworks its usually black comedy or a talking computer.  The idea of Kubrick doing Shakespeare in unthinkable.  And this hampers Eyes Wide Shut

For example,  its almost painful to watch the key scene where Cruise's "Friend" Sidney Pollack discloses he's "one of them" and tells Cruise what's "Really going on".  Not only are both mediocre actors,  they talk EXTREMELY slow.  And Pollack is charisma-free and bland**, while Cruise can't overcome his limited vocal range and acting skills.  Like Kirk Douglas, Cruise has only 2 or 3 ways to express an emotion, and that's all he's got. Its obvious that Kubrick did nothing to improve either performance. 

In any case, the story itself isn't worth 2.5 hours.  Schnitzer is relatively unknown in the USA for good reason. His stories are dated and somewhat bland. I suppose Kubrick jumped at the chance to film an orgy scene and do some soft porn. Like war, horror, and SF, sex always sells.  Bookending Cruise's walk on the wild side, is some back and forth between Kidman and Cruise about their sexual desires and marriage. But Kubrick isn't Eli Kazan or Ingmar Bergman and its all rather boring.

Summary:  Like all Kubrick films,  Eyes Wide shut is worth at least one viewing  -if only for the well done cinemaphotography, set design.  Best seen on DVD, where you can FF past the numerous dull parts.  Rating ** 1/2   

Notes

* = its remarkable how closely Kubrick hews to the original story, down to individual scenes and actions. For example, the doctor reads about the prostitutes death in café, the exact same thing happens in the movie. The only real difference is the novella is written from the Doctor's point of view. The movie adds additional stand-alone scenes for Kidman.

** = the enthusiasm for Pollack by some reviewers astounds me.  Pollack's terrible. He's always terrible. That's why he was director! Interestingly enough, Pollack replaced Harvey Keitel, who in turn, was chosen when Kubrick's first choice turned down the role.  His first choice? Woody Allen!