'Eyes Wide Shut' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Peter's review of 'Eyes Wide Shut' is up. He says this one's probably the weakest of the Kubrick films hittingf high-def this week, held back by a bit noisy, oversaturated, washed-out transfer, and a bland soundtrack. On the bright side, at least a nice selection of fresh extras provide some welcome context.

Full review here
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/273/eyeswideshut.html

[MrE]

The DVD release was good enough for me. Def not a title I'm dying to own in HD

[messin18]

Don't own this in SD so for the $15 warner.com price i pre-ordered.

"the absolutely stunning '2001'"

Does this mean 2001 is already reviewed? But reviews posted out of order?

[persona1138]

Hey all,
Just got all five Kubricks on Blu-Ray (sorry I can't comment first-hand on the HD-DVD versions, but alas, I'm not so insane as to own two HD copies of the same movies. However, I'm an early adopter of both formats, so I guess I'm already teetering on the edge of reason)
First off, "Eyes Wide Shut". Just read the review, and I agree, in terms of what folks "expect" of "HIGH-DEF VIDEO!" (to be read in a loud, booming, football announcer-ish voice), it's the least impressive of the bunch. The image is soft - diffusion doesn't help - and the black levels might be just a tad off (but not so much as to really care). However, that said, colors are gorgeous, and the look of the movie is definitely a deliberate, aesthetic choice. It's a better than mediocre transfer - it deserves 4 stars, not 3. (I know, I'm splitting hairs. But then again, so are the reviewers, so I'll say my piece, too.)
Also, just a word on the review of the film itself. I've read the Schnitzler novel upon which the film is based, and I've got to say, there's no real "romance" or "warmth" that I got from it... It's largely a Freudian dissection of sexual obsession (that said, it's been awhile since I've read it, so I'm probably oversimplifying). Regardless, the film is much closer to the source material than the review would have us believe - it's closer than, say, "The Shining" was to the original novel. Also, I'm not so sure that we were meant to be aroused by the orgy scene... It's deliberately theatrical, and a large majority of the film has a "staged" quality. I'd argue that dreams themselves feel "staged" - we know they're not real, and yet we go along with the charade. And much of "Eyes Wide Shut" (heck, even the title) is about how the line between dreams and reality get blurred. Personally, I dig the stagey style, within the context of this particular story. However, it's a much harder movie to get into than his previous films, and certainly requires to be "in the mood" for a film about sexual obsession, jealousy, dissection of marriage (to the point of near-collapse), and the dangers of sex (including AIDS, violence, etc.)... It ain't an easy movie to like. But I guarantee that repeated viewings are extremely rewarding. (But, knowing how many "haters" there are, they'll probably avoid another viewing like the plague.)
Anyway, moving on. "A Clockwork Orange" has many of the same "problems" as the "Eyes Wide Shut" transfer - it's got a soft, diffused quality about it. Although, as opposed to the dream-like cinematography of "Eyes", I think that this is more because it was SHOT in the 1970's. Really, the movie looks great for its age. Oh, but the color saturation - my GOD, you forget how effective the movie's use of color is until you see this.
Then there's "2001" - gorgeous. The best of the bunch. I was worried that the special effects might REALLY start showing their age (you can see some of the rough edges, yes), but by and large, the film's effects hold up better than you'd ever imagine in HD. Black levels are spot-on... Space has never looked so inky black. Detail, color - Really, you've never seen the movie look this good (except maybe on film... but then again, if you've seen it in a theater recently - scratches, burn marks, a bad projectionist, plus the "jitter" of the film itself don't let the fine details shine like they do here) The audio transfer is also particularly sweet.
I haven't popped in "Full Metal Jacket" yet (here's hoping it's better than the last Blu-Ray/HD-DVD transfer... although, given the quality of these transfers, I'm sure it's pretty safe to pick up), and you've already read from the guys here how great "The Shining" looks. Supplemental features on all the discs are informative and fun for any Kubrick aficianado (even if a vast majority look like they were edited in iMovie), and overall, the transfers are superb. Yes, some look "more high-def" than others, with their fine detail and "Full HD" packaging; however, ALL of these movies look better than they have in years.
Now, if only the jerks at Warner Brothers would give us "Barry Lyndon" (my personal favorite... but then again, they're ALL "personal favorites"), then I'd be a happy camper.

[Cerdo24]

Ok, so, and maybe I'm wrong on this, but the new SD 2 Disc release of Eyes Wide Shut was suppose to contain a scene specific audio commentary with Sydney Polleck and some Historian, does anyone know if this is true and if so did they just decided to leave it off the HD release, and if so why...sorry for the million questions...

[Ashamed Pegasus]

The PQ for this is disappointing... I watched this movie on INHD2 (or HDNM, can't remember which) back in 2005 and the quality was most impressive... How can they make a better transfer for cable 2 years ago than they can for HDM now?...

[Owen35]

Although I am not an expert on all the technical aspects of video, I must say that I think the reviewer got something very wrong. While he admits that he never saw EWS in the theaters, he goes on to say how the flawed the transfer is of the film. As one who DID see the film in its original release (the first day), I can tell you that this presentation on Blu-Ray matches exactly what I saw. The film had a lot of grain, the colors were vibrant but very soft, and the sound was a tad muddy. (Side note: there was a belief that Kubrick never finished the sound mix and that Warner left it "as is" for its final release.)

So, while I wouldn't call the EWS Blu-Ray release a "demonstration disc" I would give it 5 stars because it accurately and beautifully captures the exact look that Kubrick had intended. By giving it 3 stars, the reviewer gives the impression that this DVD is flawed and does not do justice to Kubrick's work--which could not be further from the truth. Maybe High-Def Digest needs to revise its rating system if they are going to review a discs quality based on what they WANT it should look like as compared to what it SHOULD look like?

[Ashamed Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Owen35

I would give it 5 stars because it accurately and beautifully captures the exact look that Kubrick had intended. By giving it 3 stars, the reviewer gives the impression that this DVD is flawed and does not do justice to Kubrick's work--which could not be further from the truth.

But by giving it 5 stars you're giving the reader the impression that the movie is comparable in quality to POTC or TF... Never seeing '28 Days Later' I read the review on BD.com which gave it 4.5 stars, so after watching the first 10 minutes I was ready to ship it back to NetFlix in disgust... I realize the film was suppose to look that way, but that's not what people expect from a 4.5-5 star rating...

The whole idea of BD & HD was to bring High Definition movies into homes, not a directors original creation... Mabey adding a disclaimer to the rating who suffice, but you certainly can not give a 5 star rating to a sub PQ because that's how it was intended to look... But that's just my opinion, as I bought into HDM for High-Def quality picture, not directors intent...

[Josh Z]

Very amusingly, I dug up this old USENET post that I wrote on July 26, 1999:

In six months, or however long it takes, when Eyes Wide Shut is finally released to some videodisc format (be it LD, DVD, or both) I do not want to hear a lot of wailing and moaning about how poor the picture transfer is, ala Saving Private Ryan.

"Oh, it's too soft."
"Oh, it's washed out."
"It looks murky and faded."
"The colors are too mushy."

This is my prediction as to the type of crap I'm going to hear. Well, stop it right now. That's the way the movie looks. That's the way it was photographed. It is *not* going to translate well to any home video format. Witness the clips they are currently showing on TV.

[Owen35]

Originally Posted by Ashamed Pegasus

But by giving it 5 stars you're giving the reader the impression that the movie is comparable in quality to POTC or TF... Never seeing '28 Days Later' I read the review on BD.com which gave it 4.5 stars, so after watching the first 10 minutes I was ready to ship it back to NetFlix in disgust... I realize the film was suppose to look that way, but that's not what people expect from a 4.5-5 star rating...

The whole idea of BD & HD was to bring High Definition movies into homes, not a directors original creation... Mabey adding a disclaimer to the rating who suffice, but you certainly can not give a 5 star rating to a sub PQ because that's how it was intended to look... But that's just my opinion, as I bought into HDM for High-Def quality picture, not directors intent...

Well, if that is your criteria, then I would assume you would give every black-n-white film a 1 star rating because it isn't in color. I mean, if it doesn't meet some high standard of HD requirement of color balance, no grain, in focus, and precise colors, then it would fail this arbitrary litmus test. The true test should be if it conforms to the director's intent and vision. If the director wanted a bluish tint for a specific scene and it appears slightly green on HD, that would be an inferior transfer, right? But, according to your criteria, if it looks "awesome" in HD, then it would be an acceptable, and highly-rated, transfer.

I don't mean to come off as smug here, but it feels very disingenuous to me to give a 3.5 rating to a video transfer that matches what appeared on the screen. Particularly with a craftsman such as Stanley Kubrick. If he had this specific look in mind, then I assume there was a very good reason for it. This transfer replicates what was his intentions and should be stated as such with a positive rating, rather than a negative one.

[nuke888]

Can anybody tell me if theres an Italian track too in the unrated one ?
I see the subs in the review but no soundtrack.Plus the unrated one is the only release of the movie on Bluray right ?

[Hobbun]

Was not a fan of this movie at all. Will not be a purchase for me.

[Patsfan123]

Originally Posted by nuke888

Can anybody tell me if theres an Italian track too in the unrated one ?
I see the subs in the review but no soundtrack.Plus the unrated one is the only release of the movie on Bluray right ?

The back of my box says Dolby Digital: Italian 5.1.. BTW the rated cut never made it on the disc.

[psickmusic]

I just watched it for the first time on BLURAY. I thought it was great.
However, it's been Y E A R S since I saw it. YEARS!! Now I'm glad I own it.

[HDM-GHANDI]

Here is a question for anybody... was the unedited version of Eyes Wide Shut the same version that Mr. Kubrick intended. I know they changed it, but is that Kubricks version? (Change of song at the beginning while Kidman changes and full seen scene orgy) Or was there some other extra scenes as well never released by Warner?