Stanley Kubrick: The Essential Collection Blu-ray Box Set | Classic Films by Warner Home Video | Perfect for Movie Lovers & Film Collectors

I won't review the films themselves. I have done so elsewhere, and if you are reading this, you probably are a Kubrick fan, anyway. My set arrived yesterday and I have spent some quality time with it, though I have obviously not had a chance to watch every disk all the way through, yet.On one user's negative review with respect to the "destructive" packaging: all I can say is, if you stop and think about it before wailing on the disks trying to get them out of their sleeves, you'll be FINE. The sleeves, are indeed, engineered to keep the disks in, so they don't fall on the floor if you tip the package the wrong way. A moment's thought will tell you that a thumb on the label side of the disk, a forefinger on the edge, and some firm but gentle pulling while rotating a little is all you need to get the disks out without a hint of damage. The sleeve will release its grip and all will be well. Believe me, you'll be glad for the snugness of the fit when you realize how well it protects the disks when you're not watching them.On the continuing Aspect Ratio controversy: I could be wrong about this, but I think the esteemed Mr. Kubrick would be fine with the 16x9 cropping of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. It's true that Kubrick initially only wanted videos of his films released "full frame", i.e. with the whole negative image showing unmasked, because he hated pan-scan, and thought letterboxing distracting. After Barry Lyndon, he shot 35mm without a hard matte, but composed for 1.85:1 precisely because he knew some theaters would project it 1.85:1 while others would go for 1.66:1, and still others would have their own "custom" aspect ratio - i.e. funky screen size based more on the way larger theaters were being chopped up into multiplexes at the time, than on the needs of the films being shown. But newer 16x9 HD TVs, which became popular after his death, largely obviated the need for near full-negative cropping, as far as video is concerned. Kubrick's visual compositions are just slightly roomy in 16x9, without the oddly empty quality of some of his shots when viewed in full-frame on a 4x3 TV. There are purists who get almost violent when discussing the "proper" aspect ratios of Kubrick's *oeuvre* on video, and who insist we should be watching them in 4x3 even now, because "that's what he intended." I am not among them. His original reasoning made sense when TVs were all squarish, but I think he would have accommodated 16x9 home theatre TVs, had he lived into the Blu-ray era. Such TVs existed in his lifetime, but they were not the norm the way they are now. If you read his interviews carefully, he was a surprisingly practical guy, for being such a perfectionist.The transfers appear, in most cases, to be the same ones used for the last release of the collection, but in a format closer to their native 4k resolution. They are - thank God - NOT over-enhanced the way so many mass-market "popular" films seem to be when released on Blu-ray, these days. While they are sharp and detailed, they don't have those artificially "cut out" looking edges, either. I'm not a videophile, but I like what I see and hear.