I just watched this for the first time. It is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. I guess my question is, what the @#$%? Why has anyone, anywhere, ever claimed this movie was even watchable, much less one of the greatest films of all time?
I'm with you man, it's boring as hell. It's not even anything groundbreaking like Citizen Kane, which is boring too but at least it was good and inventive in its own time I guess.
I liked 2001 as a book, though.
As far as I'm concerned...
2001 has a great soundtrack, and it is very aesthetically appealing in a visual sense.
Have to love that jump cut between the bone and the space ship. Millions of years in the blink of an eye.
The character HAL 9000 is a unique villain. He's quite the anomaly.
The enigmatic ending with the crazy warp stuff and star child is so out there. It's like an acid trip, the rebirth of humanity and a huge baby all rolled into one. This blew me away as a kid.
yeah, movies by Kubrick are generally boring. Entertainment doesn't seem to be his primary goal.
The movie is from 1968, and 2001 has been 5 years ago. In that context it's still a great movie.
I understand it's hard to appreciate the movie in 2006. Some of his visions were corrupted by a different reality, others are taken for granted nowadays.
reminds me, I need to watch that movie again..
btw, interesting coincidence: replace each letter in HAL by it's next in the alphabet.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
That's also what I thought the first time I watched it. Then I watched it again and enjoyed it a lot. It's a good movie, but not for everyone.
Actually, the first time I "watched" it, I quit watching about 1/3rd of the way through, so that probably doesn't count.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
2001 is one of my favorite movies. And I admit I didn't know what to think of it the first time I saw it (in the interest of disclosure, I was very high). But even sober, I feel it's a great film. The music is incredible; most versions I've seen have several minutes of music over a black screen before the movie even starts!
The non-Ligeti music was good, but who cares? It's not like he had it made for the film. All the pieces were very famous orchestral works that I was already very familiar with. The whole time I was wondering how he could justify tainting the music with his excuse for a film.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I should have watched this film a long time ago... Downloading now.
The few scenes i've seen from the movie, i liked. The moment the robot turns against the man is a very slow paced scene, and still it was enoyable to me because i put myself on that man's shoes. It reminds me of the blair witch movie, many people didn't like it, but i loved it, because i get so much into the movie, and i know that was the key point to enjoying it. That situation gave me the creeps.
This is one of the Kubrick movies I did not feel anything from. Great visuals, music, but other than that, there's not much to it.
Give me Shining, Clockwork Orange, or Strangelove any day of the week, though.
yeah, movies by Kubrick are generally boring. Entertainment doesn't seem to be his primary goal.
Yeah, he should have sacrificed some speed for entertainment!
Tub wrote:
I understand it's hard to appreciate the movie in 2006. Some of his visions were corrupted by a different reality, others are taken for granted nowadays.
Whose visions? Arthur C. Clarke's?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
I just watched this for the first time. It is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. I guess my question is, what the @#$%? Why has anyone, anywhere, ever claimed this movie was even watchable, much less one of the greatest films of all time?
There may be many reasons why you didn't like that movie:
1) You belong to the so-called "MTV-generation".
2) You watched a movie made in 1968 in 2006 and expected to see the same kind of SFX brainmushing blockbuster as nowadays.
3) You don't understand scifi. Star Trek is not scifi.
4) Any combination of the above.
There may be many reasons why you didn't like that movie:
1) You belong to the so-called "MTV-generation".
2) You watched a movie made in 1968 in 2006 and expected to see the same kind of SFX brainmushing blockbuster as nowadays.
3) You don't understand scifi. Star Trek is not scifi.
4) Any combination of the above.
You forgot "5) None of the above", which is the case for me, and most probably xebra (and others) as well. :P
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I love 2001. It does take some debate to truely understand it, but if you can stumble upon it on your own, it's a good watch.
Although I'll admit that infinite and beyond is confusing for me, and I've seen the movie 10+ times.
There may be many reasons why you didn't like that movie:
1) You belong to the so-called "MTV-generation".
2) You watched a movie made in 1968 in 2006 and expected to see the same kind of SFX brainmushing blockbuster as nowadays.
3) You don't understand scifi. Star Trek is not scifi.
4) Any combination of the above.
I think it's safe to say that any of the reasons you listed that insult my intelligence (wait -- all of them!) are invalid, for obvious reasons. More likely reasons I hated it:
The movie attempted to be thought provoking in some scenes while going on to insult the intelligence of the viewer in others.
In that vein, I found the movie to be pretentious and self-absorbed, as opposed to thought provoking.
The movie mixed astonishingly good production in some scenes with astonishingly bad production in others.
The movie was an unbearably slowly paced mishmash of unrelated scenes that were both: 1) completely unnecessary to the plot, and 2) advanced by poorly conceived contrivances.
The acting was subpar.
Ligeti's music is really overbearing and offensive.
The movie is filled to the brim with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which I was not expecting from a movie that clearly thinks so much of itself.
The real problem, though, is one of expectations. I went in expecting a Faberge egg, and came out holding a diamond-encrusted pile of shit.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
The movie attempted to be thought provoking in some scenes while going on to insult the intelligence of the viewer in others.
In that vein, I found the movie to be pretentious and self-absorbed, as opposed to thought provoking.
The movie mixed astonishingly good production in some scenes with astonishingly bad production in others.
The movie was an unbearably slowly paced mishmash of unrelated scenes that were both: 1) completely unnecessary to the plot, and 2) advanced by poorly conceived contrivances.
The acting was subpar.
Ligeti's music is really overbearing and offensive.
The movie is filled to the brim with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which I was not expecting from a movie that clearly thinks so much of itself.
The movie succeeds in being thought provoking, since the underlying theme is very dominant in its subtlety. Keep in mind that many people will never understand the movie; if you were insulted by the simplicity of certain scenes, that's because you succeed where many people fail.
I didn't find the movie to be pretentious or self-absorbed: dignifying the birth of "intelligent life" or the glory of space travel seems fairly acceptable.
I don't think the production values were important in this movie, but I'd like to hear what scenes you disliked for this reason in particular.
While I will admit that the movie is very slow, every single scene plays a role in summation. Whilst I do admit that I don't fully comprehend the last few scenes, I do know that they play a purpose, and weren't just thrown in.
It is my understanding that the acting in this movie was supposed to be realistic, not dramatic.
You aren't the first to find the music intrusive, but I will state that it played a subtle role as a unifying archetype for certain elements of the movie.
As warp stated, the movie was made in the 60s, not recently. To claim that the inaccuracies portrayed by the movie's grandiose protrayal of the turn of the millenium is a detractor is to say that Newton was the stupidest man alive for not realising that his model of physics is not universally applicable.
The movie succeeds in being thought provoking, since the underlying theme is very dominant in its subtlety. Keep in mind that many people will never understand the movie; if you were insulted by the simplicity of certain scenes, that's because you succeed where many people fail.
Whether or not the movie succeeds in being thought provoking differs from person to person, and I didn't actually say whether or not I thought it did a good job. I just said it paired scenes which were clearly meant to be thought provoking with scenes that were insulting to the viewer. As a general rule I don't enjoy movies that insult the viewer's intelligence, but moreso for movies that put on airs of being the intellectual nadir of cinema. I am also curious what subtext it is you think I missed that is so "dominant in its subtlety." (What does that even mean?)
I didn't find the movie to be pretentious or self-absorbed: dignifying the birth of "intelligent life" or the glory of space travel seems fairly acceptable.
I don't believe the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life. I'm curious to hear why you interpreted it that way.
I don't think the production values were important in this movie, but I'd like to hear what scenes you disliked for this reason in particular.
The quality of the production was clearly a major point of pride in the film, as scenes/effects which I suspect Kubrik thought new (at the time) and attractive were dragged on without end to emphasize how cool they were.
One example of the astonishing disparity in quality between various moments in the film is the scene where the "space shuttle" is docking with the space station. Never mind that there is no reason for the docking portion of the station to be rotating (indeed, even Kubrik later realized this, apparently, and managed to comprehend that the Jupiter ship didn't have to rotate in its entirety in order to have a rotating subsection), I am willing to ignore that. The scene was an impressive accomplishment. Now cut to the stewardess walking to retrieve Floyd's pen. I can only describe that scene as terrible. The effect of the stewardess walking up the side of the wall a few scenes later (the one that was serving food on the ship to the moon) was even worse! I can only classify that scene as bad beyond belief, again ignoring nonsense like there being absolutely no reason whatsoever for the cockpit and the passenger section of the ship to be upside-down with respect to each other (and, indeed, good reasons for them *not* to be since the ship lands on a body with gravitation!) I could go on and on.
While I will admit that the movie is very slow, every single scene plays a role in summation. Whilst I do admit that I don't fully comprehend the last few scenes, I do know that they play a purpose, and weren't just thrown in.
I can only say that I disagree.
It is my understanding that the acting in this movie was supposed to be realistic, not dramatic.
To me it was neither.
You aren't the first to find the music intrusive, but I will state that it played a subtle role as a unifying archetype for certain elements of the movie.
I wonder how you can keep a straight face when you call the music subtle. I also feel like I am in a high school English class. Unifying archetype? Do you mean the music was a painfully obvious cue as to the subject matter of the unfolding scene? I would agree with that statement.
As warp stated, the movie was made in the 60s, not recently. To claim that the inaccuracies portrayed by the movie's grandiose protrayal of the turn of the millenium is a detractor is to say that Newton was the stupidest man alive for not realising that his model of physics is not universally applicable.
I made my statement taking into full consideration the scientific knowledge of the time. I still maintain that it is chock full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
