The Book of Henry (2017)

[Scottie]

[MazeRunner]

I enjoyed it. I'll buy it.

[Trekkie313]

Most misleading poster of the 21st century.

[90s_kid]

This is the ultimate love-it-or-hate-it movie.

[nathanzachary]

I really hope that's not the cover. I would much rather see the alternate film poster as the Blu-ray cover:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com....jpg?noindex=1

Also, $35 seems a bit steep, but I'm guessing that I'll probably pay it... as my wallet sighs.

[Pieter V]

AVAILABLE ON DIGITAL SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 AND ON BLU-RAY™ AND DVD OCTOBER 3, 2017 FROM UNIVERSAL PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT

Bonus Features on Blu-ray™ Combo Pack and DVD

• Filming The Book of Henry – Filmmakers and cast discuss the long process of getting this passion project to the big screen.
• The Book of Henry: The Cast – Hear the cast talk about what drew them to their roles. Filmmakers also weigh in on what each cast member brought to their part, and why they were the perfect ensemble.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION - BLU-RAY™:
Street Date: October 3, 2017
Copyright: 2017 Universal Pictures Home Entertainment
Selection Numbers: 62184507/62189564 (CDN)
Layers: BD-50
Aspect Ratio: 16:9 2.00:1 Widescreen
Rating: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements and brief strong language
Languages/Subtitles: English SDH, Spanish, German and French Subtitles
Sound: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1/Dolby Digital 2.0, French DTS Digital Surround 5.1, German DTS Digital Surround 5.1
Run Time: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by 90s_kid

This is the ultimate love-it-or-hate-it movie.

You'll either love it, hate it or find it to be "so bad, its good".

[nathanzachary]

2:1 aspect ratio is strange. Essentially in the middle of the 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 ratios. I personally prefer 1.78:1, but would even take 2.35:1 instead of this ratio.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by nathanzachary

2:1 aspect ratio is strange. Essentially in the middle of the 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 ratios. I personally prefer 1.78:1, but would even take 2.35:1 instead of this ratio.

I've seen it a few times lately for digitally shot productions. First time I remember it is Fincher's House of Cards pilot, then The Girl with All the Gifts and Jurassic World:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-n...jurassic-world

I guess Trevorrow really liked the look of it and kept it here.

[nathanzachary]

I had actually thought that it was just a typo. I guess we will find out definitively once the Blu-ray is released. Most likely it is 2:1, though.

[Gacivory]

Vittorio Storaro is the biggest champion of the 2:1 aspect ratio, he has even reframed some of his older movies in the 2:1 for the Blu Ray release.

[alexroubaix]

This goes toe-to-toe with The Bye Bye Man for biggest WTF hilariousness of the year!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I've seen it a few times lately for digitally shot productions. First time I remember it is Fincher's House of Cards pilot, then The Girl with All the Gifts and Jurassic World:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-n...jurassic-world

I guess Trevorrow really liked the look of it and kept it here.

If you didn't know, 'Jurassic World' and 'The Book of Henry' are both shot on film, not digital. Most of the other 2.00:1 movies are shot on film. If you knew, then ignore my post.
Certain new digitally shot movies like The Girl with All the Gifts, 20th Century Women and Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel also use this ratio.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If you didn't know, 'Jurassic World' and 'The Book of Henry' are both shot on film, not digital. Most of the other 2.00:1 movies are shot on film. If you knew, then ignore my post.
Certain new digitally shot movies like The Girl with All the Gifts, 20th Century Women and Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel also use this ratio.

Ah, my wording was confusing, true. Yep, JW was shot mostly on film, though the linked article says that portions (aerial, it says) were shot on the RED Dragon at 6K.

I'd forgotten about 20th Century Women also being 2:1, seems to be a popular new compromise between the old "scope" and "flat" ratios.

A huge number of new TV shows seem to be using it, including the stunningly gorgeous "The Handmaid's Tale."

http://vashivisuals.com/the-hot-new-...-aspect-ratio/

Was "House of Cards" the first mainstream production to use 2:1 recently? It was certainly the first time I'd ever seen it, outside of Storaro's eccentric use of it for years.

[Chaotic]

So Jacob T. plays Georgie in this?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Was "House of Cards" the first mainstream production to use 2:1 recently? It was certainly the first time I'd ever seen it, outside of Storaro's eccentric use of it for years.

No. Before Storaro, 2.00:1 was called 'Superscope' and it was introduced with 'Vera Cruz' (1954) and subsequently on 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1956). Vittorio Storaro, began using the 2.00:1 ratio for the theatrical release from 2015 with 'Muhammad: The Messenger of God.' In both 'Apocalypse Now' and 'Little Buddha' he shot 35mm anamorphic for a 2.35:1 ratio. But on home video versions, he cropped the sides and exposed a bit more image on the top and bottom for a 2.00:1 ratio. As good ad 'Little Buddha' looks in 2.00:1 on Blu-ray, it's still revisionist. It is bad that the original cinemascope version wasn't released on Blu-ray.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No. Before Storaro, 2.00:1 was called 'Superscope' and it was introduced with 'Vera Cruz' (1954) and subsequently on 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1956). Vittorio Storaro, began using the 2.00:1 ratio for the theatrical release from 2015 with 'Muhammad: The Messenger of God.' In both 'Apocalypse Now' and 'Little Buddha' he shot 35mm anamorphic for a 2.35:1 ratio. But on home video versions, he cropped the sides and exposed a bit more image on the top and bottom for a 2.00:1 ratio. As good ad 'Little Buddha' looks in 2.00:1 on Blu-ray, it's still revisionist. It is bad that the original cinemascope version wasn't released on Blu-ray.

Ah, what I meant was that aside from Storaro, and a few early 1950s widescreen films, like those you mention, I hadn't seen anything contemporary use 2:1 until Fincher shot the House of Cards opening episodes. Now it's becoming quite standard. So I was more wondering if Fincher's decision there really started a new trend, as it seems.

[Riddhi2011]

2.00:1 is an odd ratio and it certainly makes little sense projection-wise, when most screens are cinemascope 2.39:1. The 2.00:1 is matted within a 1.85:1 DCP container and then most theatres don't even adjust the size, leaving black bars on all four sides; making the image feel really small. Either new DCP containers for 2.00:1 and 2.20:1 be created, or it's better to use 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. Digital projectionists today don't really care about the quality of the experience for the audience anymore. Most of them don't know much about aspect ratios at all.

[nathanzachary]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

So Jacob T. plays Georgie in this?

No, he plays Henry's little brother, Peter.
And if it's a reference to A Clockwork Orange, I don't know that he's really attempting to overthrow Henry.

[Britnasty]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The 2.00:1 is matted within a 1.85:1 DCP container and then most theatres don't even adjust the size, leaving black bars on all four sides; making the image feel really small.

This is what happened at my theatre when I went to see it and the employee and manager both just shrugged their shoulders at the complaint.

The exact same thing also happened when I went to see Dunkirk a second time on an Ultrascreen (I saw the 80MM opening weekend projected perfectly and wanted to see the film again but the 80MM was gone). It was on this huge ass screen but looked like I was at home watching my old 40" TV, HUGE black space and just the film point blank in the middle.