Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

[JOB 3:14]

Has anybody gotten a copy of the Kubrick classic Eyes Wide Shut? If so, can you post a picture of the cover on this thread and tell how the PQ is?

[ReduxInflux]

"I would be with the kings and the counselors of the world who built for themselves what are now ruins"

[Kristua]

Anyone have any information on the transfer that was released today? I'm curious as to the picture quality and whether it's worth picking up. Thanks in advance.

[NoQuestion]

mine still hasnt shipped from amazon yet

[thebluemax]

Picked up at Best Buy today have not watched and they matched Target on-line pice $19.95

[owa]

The PQ seems okay so far (although somewhat soft). I'm about half-way through. I haven't compared it to the DVD yet to see how much of an improvement I think there is (or isn't).

On a different note, I thought this movie was supposed to be a 4:3 aspect ratio but it's widescreen.

[RobertB]

It has lossless PCM5.1 right? I think parts of the movie has some awesome sound sequences and hope the AQ is good.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by owa

The PQ seems okay so far (although somewhat soft). I'm about half-way through. I haven't compared it to the DVD yet to see how much of an improvement I think there is (or isn't).

On a different note, I thought this movie was supposed to be a 4:3 aspect ratio but it's widescreen.

I believe the image softness in 'Eyes Wide Shut' is intentional.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by owa

I thought this movie was supposed to be a 4:3 aspect ratio but it's widescreen.

Theatrical movies have been widescreen for 50 years now.

You saw Eyes Wide Shut in a theater, you saw it in widescreen.

[bhampton]

HI,

Can you link the target price because at target I couldn't find it.

I think directors intention for EWS was 4:3. Many theaters cropped it to widescreen by masking part of the image. The Shinning should also be 4:3

(not sure about the rest of the new titles)

-Brian

[Grisle]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

Picked up at Best Buy today have not watched and they matched Target on-line pice $19.95

Best Buy told me they needed an ad and that they had to call to check if it was in stock to give me a price match...how did they price match for a website?

[thebluemax]

The disc claims to have both the R rated and Unrated versions, but there is no selectable tab to select which version to play

[Grisle]

I hope this isn't too obvious, but have you tried the pop-up menu? I apologize if you tried it and it didn't work, but I have no experience with that disc...none of my Kubrick titles shipped!

[bhampton]

My Bestbuy will match a webpage printout.

Doesn't seem like they should but as long as it works.

In the past, stores would consider if the other store was nearby and call to see if the item was in stock but these days,.. they just do it.

Of course it's a Your Milage May Vary type of thing.

-Brian

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by Grisle

I hope this isn't too obvious, but have you tried the pop-up menu? I apologize if you tried it and it didn't work, but I have no experience with that disc...none of my Kubrick titles shipped!

I sure did. I see no indication that both versions are on the disc.

[Grisle]

I guess I might as well give it a try...anyone know where I can get a price for 2001? Target doesn't have it and neither does Wal-mart.

[Grisle]

I figured you did...I guess I'm no help...sorry man.

[gand41f]

If you shut your eyes when the movie gets to the censored scenes, you get the R rated version.

sorry, couldn't resist
gandalf

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by bhampton

HI,


I think directors intention for EWS was 4:3. Many theaters cropped it to widescreen by masking part of the image. The Shinning should also be 4:3


-Brian

I'm sorry, but I have to chime in here. This is one of the biggest misconceptions around these days with regard to OAR. I'm not against a director's "intent" in any way, but in this particular case, there's something of a problem. Kubrick disliked black bars. Plain and simple. I know it sounds crazy (and it is), but although he was a genius film maker, he either didn't grasp the concept of widescreen in the home or didn't care because the only reason he chose to release his movies in 4:3 only was because he didn't want them letterboxed. Kubrick may have been an amazing director, but his opinions about home theater viewing were nothing short of ridiculous. Up until now, all home video versions of these films have always been presented in 4:3 "open aperture". This means that (and it's exclusively on Kubrick titles that this works) you can simply set your TV to "zoom" mode (cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame until the horizontal dimensions fill your screen) and you have a widescreen presentation. Stupid, I know, but that is the OAR. Case in point: the first aerial shot of the overlook hotel in "The Shining". If you watch the film in 4:3, you can see helicopter rotor blades at the top of the frame. If you zoom this shot (to the dimensions it was composed for), it eliminates the blades from the frame. Kubrick films are riddled with things like this, and it's one of the best evidences that a wider frame was what was actually intended to be seen. The reason this ONLY works on Kubrick titles is because, rather than the composition having a "variable" headroom (ala Super 35), Kubrick's films on home video have always cut off precisely the same information from the bottom of the frame as they have the top. Hence the term "open" aperture. They just opened up the widescreen composition and "took off" the matte in essence. Anyway, I hope this helps answer your question. Both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" were presented at 1.85:1 in theaters and were shot for that frame. Claims that the films were composed for 4:3 originally do not hold up. In order for a director to do this, he'd have to completely disregard what a theatrical matte would do to his film. At the very least, Kubrick was such a precise visual artist that I can't imagine he was uninvolved with the theatrical framing of his films, if only to make sure heads were in frame, etc. Otherwise, he would have just disregarded height restrictions imposed by the theatrical matte and ended up with heads cut off. If you watch "Eyes Wide Shut" in zoom mode, you'll see that this was obviously carefully avoided. So you have to conclude that he at least took theatrical framing under consideration when filming. And if a director is filming with the theatrical matte in mind, then by definition, he is composing shots for the theater. Period. Kubrick films are supposed to be 1.85:1 - as is any film shot and composed for that ratio theatrically, regardless of a director's "intent" for the home theater rhealm. Does anyone else remember how James Cameron's apparent "preference" for the 4:3 home video presentation of "The Abyss" was mentioned in the liner notes of the original special edition laserdisc release? Now, in all fairness, that film was shot in Super 35 which does allow much more freedom with regard to editing a composition. But then, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not consider 1.33:1 to be the OAR for "The Abyss", even if James Cameron thinks it looks better that way. OAR is "original aspect ratio" for a reason. And, for the record, whether Kubrick liked black bars or not, this is officially the first OAR presentation of these films. I, for one, am ecstatic. I've been waiting for widescreen versions of both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" for YEARS now. I only wish I had some money so I could buy them because I wanted to cry yesterday. lol

[RobertB]

Thanks for the blown up backside :-)

It has PCM5.1 so I'm a pleased puppy