I enjoyed the film also and thought it had a lot of interesting things to say about marriage, sex, and the masks we wear. It certainly says more than marriage is safe.

The lights that streamed down the wall at the party were great as is the soundtrack. I should crack that out. Haven't listened to it in a while.

"It is hard to accept the couple in the film will work things out when we know that in life they broke up."

First, I don't see what leads you to believe the couple will work things out, but if you can't release the actors from their real life, I don't see how can you enjoy any movie with a known celebrity in it?

El Bicho,

"First, I don't see what leads you to believe the couple will work things out, but if you can't release the actors from their real life, I don't see how can you enjoy any movie with a known celebrity in it?"

IMHO, I think the reason this film is different is that Kubrick was most likely capitalizing on the actors' real=life relationship to inform the film's characters, and to substitute the use of exposition in viewer's minds as they saw the movie.

Now as to why I think things will work out, it is because Kubrick chose to end it when the family unit has been reunited and is out shopping instead of ending it earlier in the previous scene when Alice is in tears over finding out what Dr. Bill was up to all night.

Thanks for the comments.

As an ardent supporter of Kubrick, I must admit it took a repeat viewing of the film before I came around and finally recognized the brilliance of Kubrick's vision of the film. Many of the elements of the film remind me of the Nathaniel Hawthorne short story "Young Goodman Brown"; I would venture to suggest this is probably the closest anyone has come to adapting that tale as a film.

Quote: "The DVD has been improved by the fact that it is the first release of the film in widescreen. The images are presented beautifully as Kubrick intended."
The first sentence is a matter of opinion. The second is simply INCORRECT; Kubrick intended it to be in 1.33:1 (aka 4:3 or academy ratio). He seems to have preferred it to "widescreen" for certain films. Perhaps, because this film shot mainly in intimate interiors, urban scenes, and other "vertical" environs; but this only conjecture. What is not conjecture, is the fact he intended the film to be presented in "academy" not "letterbox"; these are the facts. Research and fact checking are an important JOURNALISTIC RESPONSIBILITY.

Joe,

I appreciate your comments, and upon further research find that his longtime assistant, Leon Vitali asserts the same point you are trying to make in an interview with The Digital Bits on 5/4/01:

"Bill Hunt: ...And our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...

Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted."

So my apologies for the misinformation, and I stand corrected.