1999, 2hrs 39 min., Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language and some drug-related material. Dir: Stanley Kubrick. Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Leelee Sobieski (small role).

Viewers eyes are stretched to capacity from being so open in the late Stanley Kubrick's final (master?)piece of filmmaking. With the sexual energy, nudity and just plain sex offered it is difficult not to take notice of such an unusual movie.

I can't say that I hated Eyes Wide Shut as I did with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange, but I didn't love it, either. I came out with a lukewarm response, knowing that it is worth seeing, but not necessarily a "must-see" unless you're a film buff.

"But Jeff! Tom and Nicole butt-nekid! Who doesn't want to see that!" Okay, granted Nicole has some sexy scenes, either nude or wearing revealing clothing most of the time on screen. However, I hate to bust your bubble but Tommy-boy is never seen sans clothes, except for shirtless where you can see his man boobs.

If you want to see EWS in the hopes of seeing attractive people in their birthday suits and having sex, then you may receive some satisfaction, but not much. You must pay the price of sitting through a long, long 2 1/2-hour movie that involves absolutely no action whatsoever and much less nudity and sex than rumored. Again I apologize to the ladies, because all nudity is of the female variety. Apparently ol' Mr. Kubrick doesn't care to see what men have to offer on the big screen.

Even though Cruise is not seen naked (good for me, bad for Rosie O'Donnell), Tom turns in perhaps his finest acting performance of his career. Kubrick pulled something of Cruise in those two years of shooting, and made him into the dramatic actor he wished he could be in Far and Away. Here's a question, is being a doctor that special? Is having a medical license to flash at everyone his equivalent of a "Get out of jail free" card?

Unfortunately, Kidman is little more than a human mannequin, walking around in lingerie most of the time, when she's not naked. Her role didn't offer much to be excited about, but was important and had some moments of inspiration.

Although the film no doubt has many layers of meaning (such as the New York Post headline that reads "Lucky to be Alive", not speaking of Cruise's character but certainly fitting to the story), it did not leave me with a bad taste by not understanding what was going on. Therefore I must disagree with my brother Scott who said the end of the film reminded him of the "Saturday Night Live " sketch with Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston asking "What happened?" after the impeachment debacle that left them jobless and Clinton riding high. I will agree with Scott, though, that the ending did not wrap up all that well. It was too much like John Grisham's novels, where many times the finale is inconsequential to the first two acts.

But did it need to be 2 1/2 hours long? I shifted more in my seat during this film than during an entire 9 hour flight from Brazil the night before! The movie wasn't boring, but there are several slow-moving or uncomfortable scenes.

Also, the oh-so exciting 60-second clip of Tom and Nicole making out in front of the mirror to Chris Isaak's "Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing"-- that created a buzz at ShoWest early this year--didn't even seem 20 seconds long in the film, and was actually out of place with the flow of the moment.

Which leads me to the orgy scene, the part of EWS that defines it as a Kubrick film. It is a half-hour of bizarre attraction, not knowing exactly what to make of it, but unable to blink from staring at the screen and the artfulness of the shots that is perfectly fleshed out (pun intended) with the intense and disturbing music. This scene will be one of the classics in film history.

In the end, though, Eyes Wide Shut may end up rated in the middle of Kubrick's short but distinguished film library. It amazes me that it took over two years to film the movie, because it used simple sets and no action with a lot of talking. I understand he's a perfectionist and requires dozens of takes for many shots, but any other director could have gotten the same effect with the same actors in four months. To each his own, I guess. Que sera sera.