#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – After his wife, Alice, tells him about her sexual fantasies, William Harford sets out for a night of sexual adventure. After several less than successful encounters, he meets an old friend, Nick Nightingale – now a musician – who tells him of strange sex parties when he is required to play the piano blindfolded. All the men at the party are costumed and wear masks while the women are all young and beautiful. Harford manages to find an appropriate costume and heads out to the party. Once there, however, he is warned by someone who recognizes him, despite the mask, that he is in great danger. He manages to extricate himself but the threats prove to be quite real and sinister.
Plot: After Dr. Bill Harford’s wife, Alice, admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she met, Bill becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter. He discovers an underground sexual group and attends one of their meetings — and quickly discovers that he is in over his head.
Smart Tags: #orgy #password #prostitute #sex_party #sexual_fantasy #prostitution #scantily_clad_female #marriage #female_nudity #mansion #masked_woman #hooker #nudity #mask #erotic_thriller #lust #voyeurism #infidelity #marital_crisis #sex_ritual #sacrifice
|7.4/10 Votes: 306,161|
|7.4 Votes: 4048 Popularity: 22.121|
Be prepared to think
There is no denying that Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live. He may not have made many films, but every single one of them is a masterpiece. That is not something that can be said about many other directors. He is a true artist. And it is because of that word, “art”, that his work is often misunderstood. Rather than create films which reveal everything that the audience needs to know through the dialogue or the action, Kubrick layers his films with meaning. He does this through all aspects of the film.. the music, the images, the dialogue, and expressions. And by the end of the film, nothing is left clear, because he wants you to think about what you have seen, and come up with your own meaning for the film. The problem with this is that most people don’t go to see films to think, they just want to see the next “Armageddon” or “Waterboy”. So, if “Eyes Wide Shut” fails at the box-office, or is badly criticized by movie-goers, it has nothing to do with the film itself, but is more reflective of the movie-goers, and their inability to see further than what is presented to them on the screen. Life experience and a philosophical mind is also required to fully understand and enjoy this film. If you have ever thought of what role sex plays in your relationship, and what love and commitment really mean, you will understand this film. If you have ever considered what the difference between love and sex is, you will understand this film. If you have ever truly felt lust, you will understand this film. Be prepared to think.
Kubrick’s final masterpiece
After three years of waiting, EYES WIDE SHUT has finally come out. So now after all this time, the delays, the rumors, the teases, the sad death of its director, Stanley Kubrick, we finally get to answer the question, Does it live up to the hype? For the first time this year, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. This is, so far, the best film I’ve seen this year, and it deserves its place among other Kubrick masterpieces like DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
Although I had been looking forward to this film, I must admit I was unsure about it at first. After all, since CLOCKWORK, Kubrick’s films(BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and FULL METAL JACKET), while having some good parts, have all been somewhat flawed, particularly THE SHINING. But my misgivings were quickly put to rest within the opening scenes, where we get a glimpse of both what’s right on the surface(nine happy years of marriage, wealth, a healthy 7 year old daughter, both husband and wife with jobs) and the possibility of storms that lurk underneath(the practiced way they get ready for the party, hardly looking at each other), and I stayed enthralled throughout.
Now I’d like to use this forum to deflect some of the criticisms I’ve read of the movie so far. One, of course, is that this is not really New York City, but a soundstage in England. I’ve lived in New York City and visited several times, and the surface details seem right, but more importantly, this is set in the “rich” area of Manhattan, which has always been idealized in movies(particularly the Woody Allen ones), and thus it’s appropriate in a dream-like movie to play to the fantasy of the city, rather than the reality.
Secondly, we are given no hint that this is a dream Cruise’s character may be walking in, since it looks so real(yes, that’s inconsistent with the criticism up above, but to be fair, I’ve only seen a couple of reviews which make that mistake). First of all, dreams rarely look like they were designed by Salvador Dali(at least, my dreams). Secondly, if the whole nighttime sequence looked like a dream and nothing else, we would laugh when Cruise goes back to the various places he visited at night; how would he know to go back to them if they weren’t real? Finally, in the way the narrative unspools, it’s played like a dream, complete with scene where he might be awakening(the scene with Domino(Vinessa Shaw), the prostitute, where his cell phone rings and Kidman is on the phone right before he can do any damage).
Thirdly, that Kidman is only in the film for 40 minutes of its 2 hour, 40 minute running length. Now granted, that is all of her screen time, but when Cruise enters his “dream state”, she is always in back of his mind, not just in the flashback scenes(when he imagines her having sex with the sailor she had fantasies about), but in the fact that all the other women he comes across are meant to make him think of Kidman. And her performance is certainly strong enough(especially in her monologues) to linger in the mind.
Fourth, that Cruise is completely flat here. Again, at least in the dreams I’ve had and read about, often in dreams we react to events, not provoke them, and that’s what his character does. Secondly, Kubrick and Cruise play off of his image, to make him the object of desire of everyone he meets, and not just women(I like to think the scenes where he’s harassed by a group of teenage thugs who think he’s gay, and where hotel concierge Alan Cumming seems to be coming on to him, are Kubrick’s way of joking about the rumors of Cruise being gay which have dogged him). For all of that, I think he plays it exactly right.
Finally, that the film is flat and not really sexy. Once again, unless it’s a nightmare, dreams aren’t played at MTV speed. Secondly, contrary to what we heard at first about the film, this isn’t about sex. Rather, this is about sexual obsession, so it’s not supposed to be about sex the act. It may seem like the film cheats a little by asking us to play off our expectations of Cruise and Kidman as a couple, so we just picture in our heads them having sex, rather than us seeing it, but isn’t it good that some things are left to our imagination? Besides, it’s only on the surface that things look good, as I said before.
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read DREAM STORY, the novella this is based on, and so have no answer to those who claim this is a poor adaptation(though what some have called stilted dialogue I think adds to the dreamlike quality, and I’m normally on the lookout for flat dialogue), and that may be true. But this is an excellent film, a fitting epitaph for Kubrick, and proof once again that Cruise can act when he’s teamed with a real director.
Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 39 min (159 min)
Genre Drama, Mystery, Thriller
Director Stanley Kubrick
Writer Stanley Kubrick (screenplay), Frederic Raphael (screenplay), Arthur Schnitzler (inspired by “Traumnovelle” by)
Actors Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Madison Eginton, Jackie Sawiris
Country UK, USA
Awards Nominated for 1 Golden Globe. Another 11 wins & 29 nominations.
Production Company Warner Brothers, Hobby Films, Pole Star
Sound Mix DTS, Dolby, SDDS
Aspect Ratio 1.33 : 1 (Full Screen), 1.66 : 1 (theatrical ratio – Europe), 1.78 : 1 (Blu-ray), 1.85 : 1 (theatrical ratio – US & UK), 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
Camera Arriflex 535B, Zeiss Super Speed, Variable Prime and Cooke Varotal Lenses, Moviecam SL, Zeiss Super Speed and Variable Prime Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, London, UK
Film Length 4,380 m (Finland)
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman EXR 500T 5298)
Cinematographic Process Spherical
Printed Film Format 35 mm (Agfa CP20)