Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

STANLEY KUBRICK's "A Clockwork Orange" on Blu-ray Disc

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 of 10 OFFLINE   Rob LoVerde

Rob LoVerde


  • 32 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2008

Posted November 21 2008 - 05:12 PM

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?

#2 of 10 OFFLINE   Simon Howson

Simon Howson


  • 1,779 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted November 21 2008 - 09:44 PM

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

#3 of 10 OFFLINE   Travis Brashear

Travis Brashear


  • 1,175 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1999

Posted November 22 2008 - 01:49 AM

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.
Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part...
--Det. William Somerset, SE7EN

http://www.dvdanthol...-movielist.html), http://LDDb.com/coll....user=Filmmaker

#4 of 10 ONLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,493 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted November 22 2008 - 04:18 AM

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.

#5 of 10 OFFLINE   BillyFeldman


    Supporting Actor

  • 593 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2008

Posted November 22 2008 - 04:36 AM

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.

#6 of 10 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R


  • 1,950 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted November 22 2008 - 05:41 AM

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.

#7 of 10 OFFLINE   Rob LoVerde

Rob LoVerde


  • 32 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2008

Posted November 22 2008 - 05:03 PM

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?

#8 of 10 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg


  • 3,261 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted November 24 2008 - 07:16 AM

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.

#9 of 10 OFFLINE   TonyD


    Who do we think I am?

  • 16,566 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted November 26 2008 - 01:42 PM

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

#10 of 10 OFFLINE   MatS



  • 1,599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2000

Posted November 26 2008 - 02:47 PM

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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users