musick

my Paths dvd is not a snapper case (not that I care) and I would hardly say the cover art on the Criterion version is a sightly vision

CRM114

Right. No snapper. I just watched Badlands yesterday and that had the lame snapper.

The Criterion case actually looks like the movie. Unlike this colorized abomination:

creekdipper

Shut yo' mouth!!!

Honestly, as a cinema fan, you owe it to yourself to see Paths of Glory, 2001, Lolita, Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Clockwork Orange, and practically everything else Kubrick has done.

You really have never seen Doctor Strangelove????

Man, you're missing out on some of the best flicks ever. It's ironic that the one Kubrick film you've seen is (IMHO) the one forgettable one in his brief but brilliant repertoire.

Travis McClain

I know, I know! Last night, I streamed Killer's Kiss from Netflix, so now I've seen two Kubrick movies! Most of the rest are in my queue. I'm trying to get to the David Lean and Ingmar Bergman titles from Criterion that will be disappearing throughout the year as Netflix's arrangement with Hulu takes hold, so the Warner-produced Kubricks will have to wait for the time being.

CRM114

Ugh. Killer's Kiss?

2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. Get $10 and buy the BD today.

Travis McClain

It was Kubrick I hadn't seen, and it was scarcely longer than an hour...which fit perfectly into the time I had available before my wife got home to watch Chopped All-Stars on Food Network. It was alright, I suppose, but not one I'm likely to dwell on like I have on Eyes Wide Shut.

2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. Get $10 and buy the BD today.[/QUOTE]

It's in my streaming queue. If it should disappear before I get to it, or if I should go gaga over it (like I'm hopeful I will), they just added it at $10 to my local Walmart as part of their Spring re-set. But first, the Criterions, 'cause I'm not paying a Hulu membership on top of my Netflix membership!

Superdaddy

Mine too, and I second the recommendation. Talk about a return on investment for so little money.

My first viewing of 2001 was on a 16mm print in my public library's basement when I was about 18 years old. Later, I remember, in the early days of home video, when I didn't have a VCR yet, a local TV station aired it with a simulcast on their FM radio affiliate, in stereo. I unhooked my cheap little stereo rack system and set it up in front of the TV so I could hear the movie in stereo. (The TV was an old RCA with a puny little mono speaker). A primitive home theatre!

I've owned it four times on home video and only seeing it on a big screen could eclipse the presentation on this Blu-ray. The last time I watched it was about two weeks ago, and it was just bliss from start to finish.

Incidentally, no one ever mentions this movie as having any real demo-quality audio, but I was taken aback by the long periods of intense bass during the Star Gate sequence near the end of the movie. I never really appreciated that when listening to this in plain vanilla stereo, but in 5.1 the floorboards and walls were humming with subwoofer output while Dave travels "Beyond the Infinite!"

Sorry for the digression...2001 just does that to me, you know.

Travis McClain

My confession of not yet having seen it gets worse: a local theater screened it last year. In my defense, that night my guts were particularly uncooperative; I had meant to attend the screening.

Superdaddy

I'm envious of you soon watching it for the first time. I'd love to be able to see many of my favorites with "new" eyes.

We're all making endless discoveries in the film medium. I've been into film for thirty years myself and still have yet to see many generally accepted classics.

And don't be put off by what you may have heard about the film, and whether you "got it" or not when it's over. You can interpret 2001 as much or as little as you like. As the years have gone by, I find it less important to wonder "what it's all about" and just take what's on the screen at face value. And what is there does tell a story, one that's actually quite simple and, the more I think about it, profoundly beautiful.

Travis McClain

It took me nearly ten years and a few viewings to properly digest Eyes Wide Shut. At least, I now feel like I understand it though I'm frequently finding new subtleties to appreciate. I fully expect other Kubrick movies to require a similar investment on my part.

Solid Snake

first saw 2001 3 years ago. I knew everything about it that pop culture could tell me, just never saw it. I was visually beaten to my filmmaking core. The things I was seeing shouldn't be happening in camera..but it was. The effects hold VERY strong.

Superdaddy

Yes, absolutely! Lots of films since have special effects where time has taken a toll. Suspending disbelief becomes just that much harder when you see them again.

But while watching 2001, I have no such problems believing I'm looking at real space vehicles, in space. And the effects are around 45 years old.

I used to wonder about the smallest things while watching this film. Like simulating lesser gravity. How did they make Heywood Floyd's pen float around the cabin of the spaceship? I thought it was on a wire or something! Or matted in...but I never saw any matte lines. And then in the bonus features on the Blu-ray and corresponding DVD release, they tell you how that effect was done. And it's arguably a simpler solution than either of those options.

I'm like...I should have thought of that!

Solid Snake

oh I know. It drove me nuts..I kid you not THAT scene drove me nuts in wondering how they accomplished it THEN I watched the features and it told me how. I felt embarrassed and in awe that it was so easy but so visually complicated looking as well. Cuz well...it fucking looks like it's floating. I KNEW it had to be in camera but I couldn't tell at all how the fuck it was done. Kubrick was a damn genius at that shit.

PopcornTreeCt

This is pretty funny.

CRM114

I love it when people see 2001 and then realize there wasn't anything close to computer generated imagery and that everything was mechanical. What Kubrick did with 2001 was groundbreaking in so many ways.

CRM114

Yes! And it's one of the few films that depicts space as soundless. There are no cheesy lasers or bad explosions that look fake. Everything looks real to this day.

Mr. Cinema

I just noticed the Amazon exclusives for Barry Lyndon and Lolita. Pretty cool that they'll at least be available separately when the box set comes out. And it's nice to see Amazon get back into the exclusive action. The box set is tempting, but I'm not in a hurry to shell out $104.99 for it. I'll wait and see if it drops.

musick

so I guess we have a 5/31 date now (same day as the box) and the fact they are Amazon exclusives

CRM114

I don't get the box set. Doesn't everyone* already have the individual titles on BD?

* By everyone, I mean those that always buy the new Kubrick stuff when it comes out.

Travis McClain

Not all of us were early adopters of the format. Additionally, there are always people discovering catalog titles for the first time. In fact, based on how many complaints I've read from Kubrick enthusiasts about this box, it seems deliberately aimed a less committed purchasing group.

CRM114

Is the box just a collection of the existing BD's (with the addition of the new titles, of course)? What are the complaints? I had the last box set of DVDs of the 2-disc versions. Do I need to keep it for any reason? I still have the white box set too because it has Barry Lyndon and Lolita.) I bought those box sets because they came out at the same time as the individual titles.

I consider myself late to the BD party but 2001 was the first BD I bought (for under 10 bucks no less). I got 4 other titles through the DVD2BLU promotion. Just seems weird that people get excited for a $100 box set when the titles all exist already. (Except for the two new ones.) This goes to the point of discovering catalog titles - this doesn't seem to be the group to buy a box set.

davidh777

In addition, it was discussed earlier (I think in this thread) that a number of us got the singles on HD DVD. I have those plus the last DVD set so this might be good for me.

Superdaddy

Yes, it's the existing discs plus the two new ones. Clockwork Orange, however, is going to be a two-disc set and will add the Life in Pictures documentary to the current bonus features. (This two-BD set will also be sold separately as a digibook).

I have the DVD box with the SEs as well. 2001 is the only film from that box I've upgraded to BD so far, as it's my favorite and like you, I couldn't resist the price. I believe the existing Warner BDs include all the content from that box except for A Life in Pictures.

For myself, I wouldn't rule out upgrading everything in one fell swoop if there were a great deal on this set. The biggest negative is that it includes the Universal BD of Spartacus which is generally considered a poor transfer.

Solid Snake

Yeah the Spartacus and CO thing is the thing that keeps me off from getting it. More so..cuz I already have all of those films on BD EXCEPT for Spartacus, BL, and Lolita. THough..I would love that Doc on BD.

CRM114

OK, now I see the 2-disc ACO. I'll have to get this too.

As I was saying earlier, all the Kubrick films should be packaged this way.