STANLEY KUBRICK's "A Clockwork Orange" on Blu-ray Disc (1 Viewer)

[Rob LoVerde]

I recently picked up the 5 available Kubrick films on BD. I must say I approached "A Clockwork Orange" with some trepidation, after reading a couple of negative things written by critics online.

Of course, I don't believe everything I read, but still, I wasn't expecting much from this edition.

About 5 minutes into my screening, though, all worries were put to rest...I think it looks fantastic! So far, I think that Warner Bros. is doing an excellent job of transferring Kubrick's films to Blu-ray Disc.

Any thoughts from the forum members about this title?

 

[Simon Howson]

You may get more replies if you re-post this in the blu-ray forum.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I think, for a Blu-ray, it looks rather unimpressive--easily the worst of the Kubrick BD titles--and should be remastered and repressed. It's certainly watchable--let me never be accused of suffering from AVS-style anal retentiveness--but it's very much not up to snuff.

 

[Patrick McCart]

A Clockwork Orange was shot almost entirely on location, with either natural light, practical (visible on-set) lighting, or the most basic small kit lighting. It should look somewhat grainy and soft. There's also a lot of chromatic aberration (slight color fringing) thanks to the wide-angle lenses used. Keep in mind that Kubrick made this as a low budget film along the lines of others like Easy Rider. Wheelchairs were used instead of dollies. Kubrick even served as his own cameraman for shots using a handheld camera.

edit: I haven't seen a 35mm of ACO, so it might not be normal after all.

Eyes Wide Shut has had the same flack, even though it's supposed to be grainy, soft, and hazy. That's at least what the 35mm prints looked like.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Sorry to be a naysayer, but A Clockwork Orange looked great in its original release prints - nothing soft or hazy about it.

Eyes Wide Shut, prints of which I remind you were printed after Kubrick died, would never have been approved by him - it was the worst job of printing I've ever seen - grainy and ugly and clearly not meant to look that way. The DVD is better than the prints, and the DVD is nothing to write home about either. The original prints of EWS even had the shot in the bathroom where the entire camera crew was revealed in the mirror - think Kubrick would have let that stay in were he alive? Of course, it's been digitally removed from the DVD.

 

[Douglas R]

I agree. I saw the film when it first opened in London at the Warner and i remember thinking at the time how sharp and grain free it looked.

 

[Rob LoVerde]

Thank you all for your responses. I've re-posted this in HT-Software...can we continue there?

Travis, could you be a little more specific? What exactly isn't up to snuff? Colors? Density? Something else?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What are you talking about? That's *exactly* how the film was supposed to look. I saw it several times during its original theatrical run, and though it was very grainy, it certainly wasn't ugly... there was a dreamlike elegance to it. The grain was absolutely, completely, definitely intentional. Larry Clark, the lighting cameraman, did an extensive interview in American Cinematographer around the time the film came out and spoke about how they intentionally underexposed the film and then pushed it a couple stops in the lab to get that grainy look. A lot of time, effort and money was spent to make the film look as it does. No home video release has accurately reflected how the film looked in theater, as they all reduce or eliminate all of the grain that was part of the film's look.

 

[TonyD]

there seems to be 2 topics that are exactly the same started by the same person with exactly the same title for htis movie.

 

[MatS]

this thread was appearantly moved here from another forum while the OP posted the same subject here

just needs to be merged with the following thread by a mod
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...-ray-disc.html