Main > Everything Else

I finally saw 2001: A Space Odyssee

<< < (4/16) > >>

koz319:
Funny, I was just talking about this movie with a coworker.

Here's a link to an interesting flash explanation of the movie. (Not that it's mean to be 'correct', the authors have stated that the story is supposed to inspire questioning)

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

For what it's worth I like this movie quite a bit, and get a little more out of it each time I see it.

Koz

Grasshopper:
Shmokes, you are so very very wrong. But I do understand where you're coming from.

I first saw 2001 when I was about 10 or 11 and up until that point the only Sci Fi movies I'd been exposed to were things like Starwars and Startrek.

My first reaction was very similar to yours - too slow, minimal plot, underdeveloped characters, clunky dialogue etc. Basically I though WTF! The problem is I came to the movie with many preconceived notions of what to expect from a film.

However, I saw the film again many years later and I really enjoyed it. The difference was that this time I approached it with an open mind because I knew what to expect. Bishmasterb is right. The film definitely gets better on repeat viewings. You start to notice all the little details which were Kubrick's trademark. I've seen it four or five times now and I've come to regard it as a cinematic masterpiece.

Interestingly, several of Stanley Kubrick's other movies also seem to improve each time you watch them. For example Barry Lyndon. Another slow but incredibly beautiful film.

Stanley Kubrick was a genius. But he tended to ignore all the Hollywood conventions. So if you compare his movies with standard Hollywood fare, they tend to come up short. But that's the wrong way to look at it. His films are so unconventional that they have to be judged alone, on their own merits.

A rough analogy would be to imagine someone who has only listened to rock music all his life suddenly hearing a piece of classical music for the first time. His first reaction is likely to be WTF! too slow, where's the beat etc. But that doesn't mean classical music lacks artistic merit, or is inferior to Rock. Far from it. I suppose you could argue that classical music is very bad rock music, or vice versa. But that comparison doesn't really make any sense as they're completely different gentres. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

ChadTower:

Let's put it this way.  You should read the book.  That's all there really is to this situation.  The movie is like a companion to the book, not necessarily a substitute.

ChadTower:

I never did see 2010.  My older son and I read through the whole series of books last year, though.  I thought the big disconnect in this movie was the very end.  It was a really, really well articulated sequence of events in the book.  In the movie it was just sort of a bunch of flashes of scenery followed by an image of something that looked like a huge fetus.  There just wasn't enough explanation for people who are no longer dazzled by movie scenery.  The scenery in the ending holds up but the storytelling really doesn't for the most part.

Loafmeister:
I'm not the biggest fan of 2001 as I did find it a bit slow, but can appreciate why people like it so much. There is depth there if one keeps an open mind. No one has to like it of course, to each their own.

But it really grates me when someone has to insult others for someting they don't like; shows immaturity I judge ;).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version