Eyes Wide Shut A high-society doctor's self-esteem crumbles when his wife confesses that she had a past sexual fantasy with another man. That sends him on an all-night journey into decadence and a secret sexual society. He gets propositioned by street hookers, meets a scuzzy guy who prostitutes his own daughter, and ultimately crashes a ritualistic orgy of masked revelers. 159 minutes, No persons under 18. Thriller, Drama. Read the Movies for Africa comments. You can usually find additional (copyrighted) pictures, trailers, etc, on the Official Site. Where's it showing?

The Moviesite Fan Club comments

Isma Manitsa: A bit slow-paced. Isobel Whitfield: What a disappointment! After all the hype in the media. Poor acting and no REAL saucey bits? What's all the fuss about? I wouldn't recommend it! Francois Geldenhuys: The whole reason to go and see the movie is because they advertised it to be this movie about sex as never seen before (and between Nicole and Hubby none the less). The only thing is, you never see ANY sex between them, the movie was cut to shreds - Not only was there no significant sex scenes, but the ones that they did show, was so tame and not erotic at all. The movie also had a very poor story line and was to long and boring - the guy next to me actually fell asleep during the performance. I will not recommend this movie to anyone - if I wanted to see naked women I will go down to Clifton beach - same effect. Gerhard Breytenbach: Very well done, written and directed - Great Movie Robert Haynes: BBBB...BORING. God never has a three hour movie felt like a 6 hour television mini-series. If your idea of fun is watching a 70's porno without the porn then run to this "gem" However if like me you expected a GOOD movie that consists of more than Tom and Nicole bickering at one another for nearly 3 hours - then see something else. The irony of this film is that it took 2 years to shoot - WHY ??? Ilse Charter: Very hot! Andre Swanepoel: Bizzare show, no obvious point to it. Darwin Franks: I knew while watching the movie that there would people who would complain about it. It frustrates me, but peoples' taste differs. What I don't understand is when people criticise a movie for failing to meet up to expectations. I say: Serves you right if you left the movie disappointed that you didn't get to see Tom and Nicole f**king on screen. You should rather spend your time considering the implications of your celebrity voyeurism. Has it even occured to you that the movie trailers themselves were designed to prey on this voyeurism, and that the trailers (not the film) was Kubrick's final work. I thought the movie was superb, at times magnificent: 1) because of the beautiful way in which it was filmed (almost every frame in the movie holds up as a still photograph); 2) for the excellent way Kubrick directed his actors (the intricate inner psychological states manifested in the expressions and subtle gestures of all the actors with dialogue is so breathtaking any resistance to the admiration it inspires would be futile); 3) the movie communicates on so many levels (the silence, instead of being boring, creates tension, sometimes even more jarring than the music score, which in itself is used to reflect what the characters are feeling, as opposed to your standard money-making-jam-as-many-songs-into-the-last-three-minutes-of-the-movie-as-possible type thing); 4) because Kubrick worked so hard at it, despite the fact that he was dying - that demands my respect. Guinevere Vos: Way too long. Cruise and Kidman are great in their performances but Kubrick should have known better. Maybe the initial idea was great and after 2 years it just fizzled out. Santelle Garces: Now this is what I call CR*P!