Stanley Kubrick Collection

[kevyip1]

I'm disappointed that Barry Lyndon won't be remastered. I would gladly forgo "Full Metal Jacket" in favor of it. In fact, I'm not going to buy the new FMJ, since I was never really excited about the film -- the pre-war sequence was as good as anything Kubrick had made, but the rest was a BIG letdown.

I'm excited about all the HD/BD editions, however. Will the extras be in HD, anyone know?

A big letdown after "Platoon", which was still fresh in my memory when I saw FMJ in '87. I haven't seen FMJ in 20 years so maybe a second viewing would help, or maybe not...

[tavernier]

A big letdown after "Platoon", which was still fresh in my memory when I saw FMJ in '87. I haven't seen FMJ in 20 years so maybe a second viewing would help, or maybe not...

That's the biggest mistake many reviewers and viewers made back in '87, comparing FMJ with Platoon. Watch them both again now--I'm curious what your reaction will be.

[kevyip1]

It wasn't a bad film; it was just not the masterpiece that Kubrick was capable of -- I'm talking strictly about the battlefield sequences in FMJ, since the marine training sequences were brilliant. Kubrick was a master in depicting the dehumanizing effect of an oppressive, isolated environment, a theme handled brilliantly in the confined reform center in "Clockwork Orange" and the claustrophobic spaceship in "2001". It was marginally effective in the closed-down haunted house in "The Shining", however, with its preposterous supernatural theme that was so out of Kubrick's element. Then it was brilliant again in the first 45 min of FMJ, set in the isolated marine camp, with Vincent D'Onofrio channeling Malcolm McDowell big time. Once D'Onofrio and R Lee Ermey exited, the movie was essentially over for me. Because when we got to the battlefield, Kubrick was out of his element again. Note that his best war movies, "Dr Strangelove" and "Paths of Glory", were not really about what happened in the battlefields.

Maybe a second viewing would help... In my first viewing of "The Shining", I thought it was disappointingly campy. I saw it again many years later and liked it much better, but only liked it enough to say it was "one of my favorite horror films", which is not saying much when it comes to Kubrick. When I see FMJ a second time, I would probably enjoy it more but likely would not be wowwed.

[Awesome Welles]

Note that his best war movies, "Dr Strangelove" and "Paths of Glory", were not really about what happened in the battlefields.

I happen to think that the scenes on the battlefield in Paths of Glory are breathtaking. With regards to Full Metal Jacket I would definitely say watch it again. The problem you are referring to, in my opinion, is that Matthew Modine is not as strong a character as R. Lee Ermey or Vincent D'Onofrio. That said I think that the second half of FMJ is much more cerebral and is the antithesis of the first half, which engages us on an emotional level.

With regards to Platoon, I don't advise watching this again because it's simply not worth it in my opinion, it's be like shattering a great old memory (if this sounds a little harsh it's because I think Oliver Stone is a useless hack).

[exte]

That useless hack delivered JFK, which almost no other filmmaker I believe is close to capable of doing. Instead, at best, we're offered soft-gloved efforts like Redford's new film starring Tom Cruise. But, this is a Kubrick thread and JFK isn't a war film, so I'll stop.

[kevyip1]

Speaking only of HD DVD editions, the specs say "Clockwork Orange" will be a 2-disc set (i.e. 2 dual-layer HD DVD discs) while the other titles will be 1-disc. Hmmm....

[macaca]

why the hell is the altered version of 'eyes wide shut' inlcuded (also with the unrated) in this set? not only is it available elsewhere, i feel the people buying this set were the ones who protested against it in the first place. now the extras will be spread across 2-discs. what a waste.

[Andre Jurieu]

why the hell is the altered version of 'eyes wide shut' inlcuded (also with the unrated) in this set? not only is it available elsewhere, i feel the people buying this set were the ones who protested against it in the first place. now the extras will be spread across 2-discs. what a waste.

What about the people who care about preserving the original theatrical presentation? There are many who requested that the original version of Touch of Evil be released on DVD. Isn't this decision by Warners based upon the potential that customers will make a similar request if the original US theatrical version is not included?

[miless]

why the hell is the altered version of 'eyes wide shut' inlcuded (also with the unrated) in this set? not only is it available elsewhere, i feel the people buying this set were the ones who protested against it in the first place. now the extras will be spread across 2-discs. what a waste.

What about the people who care about preserving the original theatrical presentation? There are many who requested that the original version of Touch of Evil be released on DVD. Isn't this decision by Warners based upon the potential that customers will make a similar request if the original US theatrical version is not included?

it's completism... just look at Blade Runner... do we really need five cuts of the film in one package? ABSOLUTELY!

[macaca]

why the hell is the altered version of 'eyes wide shut' inlcuded (also with the unrated) in this set? not only is it available elsewhere, i feel the people buying this set were the ones who protested against it in the first place. now the extras will be spread across 2-discs. what a waste.

What about the people who care about preserving the original theatrical presentation? There are many who requested that the original version of Touch of Evil be released on DVD. Isn't this decision by Warners based upon the potential that customers will make a similar request if the original US theatrical version is not included?

it's completism... just look at Blade Runner... do we really need five cuts of the film in one package? ABSOLUTELY!

The difference is: Kubrick did not approve of the 'shadowy version' cause he was kind of dead. and again, that version is already available as a Region 1 release. If somebody really uptight wants to watch this film, they can get that version. as for the people that don't mind seeing sexual acts, and more importantly, the directors original take, can get the new dvd release. i still don't understand why they needed to include both? I'd love to poll all the people who buy it, and see how many would rather watch the cut version. i bet the answer is less than 2%. but yeah, i guess its 'completism' i see it as charging $5 more for 2 discs, but whatever.

[Jeff]

why the hell is the altered version of 'eyes wide shut' inlcuded (also with the unrated) in this set? not only is it available elsewhere, i feel the people buying this set were the ones who protested against it in the first place. now the extras will be spread across 2-discs. what a waste.

I believe that the two versions are both being offered on the first disc via "seamless" branching. Therefore, including the U.S. version will not take up any more space than it would if it were just a deleted scene.

[macaca]

I believe that the two versions are both being offered on the first disc via "seamless" branching. Therefore, including the U.S. version will not take up any more space than it would if it were just a deleted scene.

thats pretty interesting. i think something was done like that for the storytelling dvd. pardon my rant.

[Andre Jurieu]

The difference is: Kubrick did not approve of the 'shadowy version' cause he was kind of dead.

Isn't the official line that Kubrick did approve the US theatrical version, or at least that, before his death, Kubrick envisioned it that way and instructed his post-production crew to place those obstructions in specific places? Whether or not anyone decides to believe that is another story (I have my doubts).

I'm wondering if this version is going to be the one where the shadowy figures are reading passages from the Gita during the orgy scenes.

[Highway 61]

The official line is that Kubrick knew he had to deliver an R-rated film, and therefore was prepared to alter the film in some way. Leon Vitali said that had Kubrick lived, he simply would have trimmed portions of the orgy scene, but because he died, WB and the Kubrick estate chose to avoid an uproar by not removing anything from the film and opting for the CGI compromise instead.

[Andre Jurieu]

The official line is that Kubrick knew he had to deliver an R-rated film, and therefore was prepared to alter the film in some way. Leon Vitali said that had Kubrick lived, he simply would have trimmed portions of the orgy scene, but because he died, WB and the Kubrick estate chose to avoid an uproar by not removing anything from the film and opting for the CGI compromise instead.

Any chance that you have a link to the article where Vitali discusses the editing? I would be interested in reading this comments.

Now that I'm thinking about it, there's very little difference between asking for or providing both cuts of Touch of Evil and both cuts of Eyes Wide Shut, considering neither theatrical print preserved the director's initial intentions. I still don't think it's wrong of WB to include the original theatrical presentation on the DVD, as long as they also include the cut that Kubrick preferred.

[Wittsdream]

Leon Vitali said that had Kubrick lived, he simply would have trimmed portions of the orgy scene, but because he died, WB and the Kubrick estate chose to avoid an uproar by not removing anything from the film and opting for the CGI compromise instead.

How bloody ironic is it that because of Kubrick's premature death, we may have actually gotten MORE of a director's cut of the film (CGI instead of wholesale cuts) than if he would have lived through the final stages of editing right up to the release date. As is evident in existing "un-cut" versions of the film on DVD, the CGI inserts were easy to excise, thus allowing us to see the orgy sequence completely intact.

Obviously, a couple scenes that tend to drag just a bit would most assuredly have been tightened by Kubrick, but I have my doubts that Warner Bros would have allowed Kubrick to release a "true" director's cut anytime in the near future.

There were many incarnations of Dr. Strangelove issued (on laserdisc by Criterion and DVD) in special editions, yet we have to this day not seen one clip of the famous pie fight scene in the war room.

I am wondering, though, if the new "un-cut" versions of Eyes Wide Shut will include the original Bhagavad Gita chants?

[Andre Jurieu]

I am wondering, though, if the new "un-cut" versions of Eyes Wide Shut will include the original Bhagavad Gita chants?

I was asking the same question (see above). There is (was?) a Region 3 DVD that includes that cut.

[tavernier]

Considering what he did with 2001 and The Shining after their premieres, I'm sure he would have re-edited EWS as well if he had lived. As it is, I have to sit through that awful Pollack-Cruise pool table scene that explains the whole plot near the end.

[Nadsat]

I am wondering, though, if the new "un-cut" versions of Eyes Wide Shut will include the original Bhagavad Gita chants?

I was asking the same question (see above). There is (was?) a Region 3 DVD that includes that cut.

I think all R2 releases includes the chant (except the British one). But wasn't the chant really cut in the R1 releases?

[Highway 61]

Any chance that you have a link to the article where Vitali discusses the editing? I would be interested in reading this comments.

Leon Vitali speaking to The Digital Bits:

"I can tell you that Stanley, before he passed away, was conscious of the fact that there was probably going to be a problem with the film with the MPAA, which might affect those scenes. So we talked with Stanley about what we'd do if that came up. We talked about CGI - digital alteration - and simply re-editing the film. Stanley would probably have just gone into the editing room and made the cuts himself. But after he passed away, we didn't feel comfortable re-editing his film after the fact. So we opted for the digital alteration, which he had acknowledged as an acceptable option. That way, his original edit would still be left intact, and yet the needed changes could be made to get the R rating which the Warner contract mandated."

Now much detail there, really, and when you consider that Vitali, Harlan, and other Kubrick collaborators have changed their tune on aspect ratios, his comments are suspect.

[tavernier]

We could start a whole new thread on these guys' flip-flopping.

[miless]

We could start a whole new thread on these guys' flip-flopping.

yeah, they're a bunch of John Kerrys

[hot_locket]

I think they should market this new release as Eyes Wide Shut: UNCUT AND UNRATED!! to appeal to today's consumers.

[souvenir]

Yeah, throw in an "Extra Nudity!" banner and you're all set. I've seen both theatrically and the differences are minimal though. Sure you can detect the blurring if you're looking for it, but it doesn't have much of an impact on anything in the film. More of a footnote look into the MPAA and Warner Bros. than any sort of artistic measure.

Edit: Argh, blurring isn't the correct term. I was thinking about the digitally imposed creations, which mostly look silly but not overly intrusive..

[you gotta be kidding me]

Sure you can detect the blurring if you're looking for it

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to? "Blurring"? There's the version with digital figures added, and then there's the version with out... do you mean the digital figures are blurry, or do you mean that the nudity was masked with digital blurring, like on Court TV or something?