Main > Everything Else
I finally saw 2001: A Space Odyssee
shmokes:
It's awful. Good lord. It was horrible. I really believe that anybody who says otherwise is either being pretentious or is simply self-conscious/embarrassed cos they feel like they should have liked it.
protokatie:
If you had seen it as a kid around the time it first came out I am sure you would have a different opinion. For an example, look at ST:TOS, when I watched the reruns of that as a kid in the 80's it was cool. I watch it now and it is absolutely horrid. I just want to reach into the screen and slap Kirk for being such a douch!
shmokes:
I watch Star Trek: TOS episodes today and absolutely love them. They are hilarious. I don't care when 2001 was made, the story doesn't make sense. The set pieces are cool, and especially in 1968 or whenever it was made, they probably looked really cool. But staring at a cool set piece with classical music blasting in the background for 10 minutes is not a movie. For about 20 minutes when the movie briefly became a horror movie it was really good. Everything that came before or after is garbage.
CheffoJeffo:
--- Quote from: shmokes on January 30, 2010, 01:01:29 am ---It's awful. Good lord. It was horrible. I really believe that anybody who says otherwise is either being pretentious or is simply self-conscious/embarrassed cos they feel like they should have liked it.
--- End quote ---
How did I know that we wouldn't see eye-to-eye on this one ? I would think that the pinnacle of pretentiousness would be assuming that everybody would have to agree with your opinion.
2001 is one of my favourite movies of all-time and was one of the first movies I re-bought on BluRay.
I'll be the first to admit that the story was a little light (it was based on a old short story after all) and that they ran light on explanations.
The best thing about 2001, however, is that it is a really beautiful move to watch.
Those effects were all done before *I* was born and, to my mind, were among the most ambitious ever attempted in a movie (after you adjust for available technologies). Some people (Mrs. Cheffo for example) aren't impressed with stuff like that, but I sure as hell am.
So which am I ? Pretentious or self-conscious ?
Maybe I just liked it.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: CheffoJeffo on January 30, 2010, 08:45:40 am ---
I'll be the first to admit that the story was a little light (it was based on a old short story after all) and that they ran light on explanations.
--- End quote ---
I'll go with pretentious.
You can't just brush aside what should be damning criticism with a parenthetical like that. You could say about Twilight: I'll be the first to admit that the story and dialog are bad (it was based on a ---smurfy--- novel after all).
And anyway, what kind of explanation is that? Shawshank Redemption is based on a short story. Memento is based on a short story. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is based on a really short story. Clearly being based on a short story is no kind of excuse to make a bad movie. You know what's sort of important when you're telling a story? The story.
Obviously the movie had great effects. And obviously Kubrick was proud of them since he would show you something and then say, "Pretty cool, huh? Let's just stare at this for 10 minutes, okay?" And some of them were just lame. Right after the mind-numbingly long light-effects scene just after reaching Jupiter we were treated to a mind-numbingly long (and completely nonsensical) series of scrolling negatives of landscapes in goofy colors. It made no sense whatsoever. It was decidedly not beautiful. It wasn't technically impressive. It was boring as ---fudgesicle---.
Which of course led to the completely nonsensical ending that was also utterly irrelevant to the rest of the movie and didn't even purport to resolve anything. Kubrick was just like, "Um . . . I don't really have an ending for this movie, have something random instead. ART!!!!!"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version