Batfan175 wrote: ↑

March 19th, 2018, 5:58 pm

Eyes Wide Shut would be the wrong answer when it comes to Stanley.

No.

Dobson wrote: ↑

March 20th, 2018, 7:10 am

Batfan175 wrote: ↑

March 19th, 2018, 5:58 pm

Eyes Wide Shut would be the wrong answer when it comes to Stanley.

No.

I like the film just fine (it does have an amazing aesthetic) and the mystery is quite nice but, just as a point of comparison, Barry Lyndon managed to make me cry, both because of its story, its music and because I could not believe the visual beauty presented to me, the way many shots looked like actual paintings....it was a losing battle for Eyes Wide Shut from the start...by comparison because, yes, Eyes Wide Shut is better than a lot of films out there but in terms of Kubrick's own work it is a lesser film imo.

LelekPL wrote: ↑

March 20th, 2018, 7:08 am

2001 is slightly more impressive technically but Interstellar is a better, more engaging story and movie overall.

lol, hit me up with whatever's in your bloodstream

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/christ ... 201944508/

Christopher Nolan Headed to Cannes for the First Time With ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ Unrestored 70mm Print
Nolan will also present a Cannes Masterclass in which he will discuss his career and passion for Kubrick’s filmography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR_e9y-bka0
transfer lookin good even on youtube

"For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative. This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. This is the unrestored film - that recreates the cinematic event that audiences experienced fifty years ago." - Christopher Nolan

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote: ↑

April 20th, 2018, 12:14 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR_e9y-bka0
transfer lookin good even on youtube

"For the first time since the original release, this 70mm print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative. This is a true photochemical film recreation. There are no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. This is the unrestored film - that recreates the cinematic event that audiences experienced fifty years ago." - Christopher Nolan

Do we know list of theaters showing the 70mm?

I think I saw that one, it still had black spots over it. It wasn't as clean as Lawrence of Arabia's I saw in 70mm

dude

Redditor(s) claim that colours are yellow-er than original.

True or not?

Pratham wrote: ↑

April 20th, 2018, 2:04 pm

Redditor(s) claim that colours are yellow-er than original.

True or not?

when we say original what we talkin bout cuz i'm fairly positive most redditors aren't old enough to have seen it in 1968