tried to watch this. i fell asleep towards the end. i know its critically acclaimed. i know its considered a masterpiece, espescially considering the time period it was filmed. definitley ahead of its time. but damn, its so long and boring. correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try. i found the begining to be the most entertaining part. "monkey touch the monolith!!!". i say that randomly now, if you havnt seen this movie that phrase makes no sense. say it, you almost always get a wtf reaction from somebody. opinions of this movie? oh, ive seen 2010, i liked that one.
My guess, there was serious human and computer interaction in 2010, 2001...not so much.
If you can't do without that, the 'Grand Idea' of 2001 will leave you wanting.
Quote from: kakihara on July 05, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try.
No, you're right, you need to give it another try. :wink:
My biggest problem was that the whole thing with HAL killing the astronauts was completely unexplained. It made perfect sense when they revealed the cause in 2010, but until that movie came out, I didn't have a clue. I can certainly understand the ending being left open to interpretation, but not the entire middle part of the movie.
I loved it all.
The music,the Dawn of Man sequence,the insane supercomputer HAL,the whole granduer-and emptiness of space-one of my favorite sci-fi flicks EVER!
And of course...this trip....!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0&feature=related
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 05, 2012, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: kakihara on July 05, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try.
No, you're right, you need to give it another try. :wink:
Yep this, and give the book a shot too. Its just like the movie, but stuff
makes sense.
The part with the proto-humans was good. The rest ...
Much of the movie is crippled by Kubrick making love to his sets and models with the camera. Yes, Stanley, the model ships are pretty neat. Yes, Stanley, you've figured out some cool camera tricks to simulate zero-gravity. Can we please get back to the, er, plot now? No? You want to camera-hump your models and sets some more?
The part with the colors was unbearable. And the ending made me want to punch someone in the face.
I guess individual parts of 2001 would be captivating if seen as short films but, tied together into something resembling a movie, they just don't work together.
I love that movie so much. I feel like it captures the awe and terror of space and our general existence. It's not the least bit boring to me.
Quote from: akiratubo on July 06, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
The part with the proto-humans was good. The rest ...
Much of the movie is crippled by Kubrick making love to his sets and models with the camera. Yes, Stanley, the model ships are pretty neat. Yes, Stanley, you've figured out some cool camera tricks to simulate zero-gravity. Can we please get back to the, er, plot now? No? You want to camera-hump your models and sets some more?
The part with the colors was unbearable. And the ending made me want to punch someone in the face.
I guess individual parts of 2001 would be captivating if seen as short films but, tied together into something resembling a movie, they just don't work together.
Ouch! :buggedout:
This film is an absolute classic, and it deserves every bit of that title.
It is slower than a modern film, it's dreamlike, and it leaves a lot up to the viewer. Personally, I don't mind that at all. I enjoy a bit of ambiguity in my films. I don't mind thinking about the film, and trying to answer the questions it brings up.
One of my favorite things about this film is Kubrick's way of making the camera feel detached from the events taking place, while still making you feel engaged. I do hope that makes sense. Kubrick doesn't try to show HAL as being evil, or his actions being wrong, nor does he pass judgement on Bowman for shutting down HAL. I honestly find the scene with Bowman meticulously shutting down HAL bit by bit, to be somewhat heartbreaking. Daisy...Daisy....
This is a film I first shared with my daughter a few years ago. She is 9 now, and still absolutely loves it. She is enthralled by the story, the imagery, the score....everything I loved about it growing up, and everything I still love about it.
I know that Kubrick doesn't appeal to everyone. I know that film snobs like to throw his name around and act pretentious. Fact is though, that man had a hell of an eye for cinema. He could do no wrong!
Also, tidbit here: The instructions for the "space toilet" that Dr Floyd reads in the beginning were actual instructions. Kubrick was so dedicated to the ideas, that he had engineers work up the idea and put functioning instructions in the film.
Quote from: Mr_Vindictive on July 07, 2012, 06:41:25 AM
He could do no wrong!
EYES WIDE SHUT?
(HA, I typo'd an "I" for that "U" in SHUT....should have left it).
Agree with what you said about 2001, by the way.
Quote from: kakihara on July 05, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
tried to watch this. i fell asleep towards the end. i know its critically acclaimed. i know its considered a masterpiece, espescially considering the time period it was filmed. definitley ahead of its time. but damn, its so long and boring. correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try. i found the begining to be the most entertaining part. "monkey touch the monolith!!!". i say that randomly now, if you havnt seen this movie that phrase makes no sense. say it, you almost always get a wtf reaction from somebody. opinions of this movie? oh, ive seen 2010, i liked that one.
The first time I looked at this movie, I was bored with it too. Perplexed maybe. I've seen it now many times, and it has become ENDLESSLY WATCHABLE for me. I love the soundtrack, I love the long sequences... I love how much of the film is nearly motionless... it's like watching a clock's pendulum swing. Next thing you know, three hours have passed. I also love
BARRY LYNDON (to my amazement, I actually love a
RYAN O'NEAL film) another of those "motionless"
STANLEY KUBRICK films.
Hal's voice creeped me out SO MUCH as a kid.....still does . :buggedout:
Quote from: Jack on July 06, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
My biggest problem was that the whole thing with HAL killing the astronauts was completely unexplained. It made perfect sense when they revealed the cause in 2010, but until that movie came out, I didn't have a clue. I can certainly understand the ending being left open to interpretation, but not the entire middle part of the movie.
Well it wasn't explained to Dave Bowman now was it. He had to deal with the thing going rogue. I think this is a case of its better left unexplained and you can interpret it your own way.
HAL was simply following its programming ... however HAL's interpretation may differ somewhat from ours. I agree with those who are calling this a classic. It is a more challenging film that may well take more than one viewing to fully appreciate and maybe even more beyond that for some. It really forces one to think outside the box and even outside the limits of what's on screen. Forces you to think it does but it's also a visual spectacular with something visually interesting always going on.
Some years ago, 2001 was going to be shown on TV. As my brother and I had never seen it, but had heard much of its reputation, we looked forward to finally seeing this much vaunted classic.
I even drew my brother a handwritten invitation that said, 'You are cordially invited to a private screening of the classic scifi movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, in our TV room,' along with some stars and planets and the moon.
We sat down with snacks and drinks in the light of the TV. The opening sequence began ... and the movie rolled ... and by the end we looked at each other and said, 'what the hell was THAT???' It was one of the most perplexing moments in all the times we had watched movies together. This movie that was an absolute classic scifi hit had left us scratching our heads at its slow pacing and incomprehensible plot.
That was years ago. I will have to watch it again to see what I think now.
2001 is TRUE sci-fi....in the Robert Heinlen sense.
Reading Heinlan is a chore for non-Heinlan fans.....try reading STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND or NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
It's an aquired taste-one I personally find wonderful.
Quote from: ulthar on July 07, 2012, 09:22:26 AM
EYES WIDE SHUT?
(HA, I typo'd an "I" for that "U" in SHUT....should have left it).
Agree with what you said about 2001, by the way.
Doing wrong and having a misstep, are not
quite the same thing! LOL :smile:
My main problem with Eyes Wide Shut, and what I think tainted it for a lot of people, was the fact that it was Kubrick's final film. You expect a master to go out with a bang, something worth remembering. I loathed Eyes Wide Shut when I first saw it, upon it's release. After some time, and revisiting it on occasion, it has grown on me. It is by far the man's weakest film, but it is still just absolutely stunning to look at.
The presumption in terms of an explanation for HAL's behavior prior to the backstory that 2010 introduced was that he had malfunctioned. Even so you could interpret it of him being corporately sabotaged by the government anyway by simply connecting the dots, so there was elements of ambiguity.
I love this film. For the most pure experience it must be seen on Blu-Ray. The superb model work, cinematography and general visuals really make a difference.
Quote from: Robocop on July 08, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
I love this film. For the most pure experience it must be seen on Blu-Ray. The superb model work, cinematography and general visuals really make a difference.
Most pure home viewing at least. I'd LOVE to see a full-on 70mm print on a huge screen. When I worked at a theater I watched my Blu-ray copy projected in an auditorium and it looked very good but a real clean print would be even better.
I'm just wondering why 2001 is in the "Bad Movies" section...
:lookingup:
Quote from: RCMerchant on July 08, 2012, 07:00:21 AM
2001 is TRUE sci-fi....in the Robert Heinlen sense.
Reading Heinlan is a chore for non-Heinlan fans.....try reading STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND or NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
It's an aquired taste-one I personally find wonderful.
Heinlen is a pleasure. :wink:
Quote from: kakihara on July 05, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
tried to watch this. i fell asleep towards the end. i know its critically acclaimed. i know its considered a masterpiece, espescially considering the time period it was filmed. definitley ahead of its time. but damn, its so long and boring. correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try. i found the begining to be the most entertaining part. "monkey touch the monolith!!!". i say that randomly now, if you havnt seen this movie that phrase makes no sense. say it, you almost always get a wtf reaction from somebody. opinions of this movie? oh, ive seen 2010, i liked that one.
It takes multiple viewing to get. It took me 3 veiwings to "get it".
I read the book, and watched the movie at about the same time. It was a huge help in getting the big idea. I love this movie, and often wish I lived in that 21st century. Space Hostesses!
-Ed
2001, much like EWS, is one of my favorite movies to analyze/study more so than being an actual favorite, if that makes sense. I love how the movie prior (Strangelove) ends with the world blowing up ...and here we are at the beginning of time (a reset button?). 2001 ends with the Starchild, and ACO (his next flick) starts with the Starchild (Alex). Fascinating stuff.
2001 was pretty unconventional for its time -most stories have three acts; 2001 has four -each significant. Also it's important to point out that this story is not really told with characters and dialog (we don't get until about 20+ minutes in); it's told more with images, concepts, symbolism, and even sound.
I've read that Kubrick designed it more like a symphony (Beethoven to be more exact) rather than a standard rock song. The first parts an introduction, the second part jokey, the third gets pretty serious, and the last is abstract. There are some great analysis of 2001 (along with the rest of Kubrick's stuff) out on the Web -I'll have to look some up and link to them if anyone's interested.
And in my opinion, EWS was really for Kubrick fans (whether they liked it or not is a different question) as it's mainly just a meta reference to all of his other work with Tom Cruise as the butt of the joke (at least that's how I like to see it). Also, EWS is much better than Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, and (my least favorite) Lolita.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on July 11, 2012, 02:47:44 PM
2001 was pretty unconventional for its time -most stories have three acts; 2001 has four -each significant.
How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.
Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 11, 2012, 03:27:35 PM
How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.
Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!
I was thinking the four: ape/man prologue (how many movies have the prologue as an ACT?), the moon base scenes, everything actually on
Discovery One, far, far from Earth, and the Star Child.
You put the moon base in with the actual flight as an Act? I suppose that's part of the interpretation-heavy appeal of this movie. Even categorizing its structure is subject to opinion to some degree.
Quote from: ulthar on July 11, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 11, 2012, 03:27:35 PM
How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.
Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!
I was thinking the four: ape/man prologue (how many movies have the prologue as an ACT?), the moon base scenes, everything actually on Discovery One, far, far from Earth, and the Star Child.
You put the moon base in with the actual flight as an Act? I suppose that's part of the interpretation-heavy appeal of this movie. Even categorizing its structure is subject to opinion to some degree.
OK, I see what you guys are saying.
I was looking at it as three acts because there are three different stylistic sections: the silent, documentary-like prologue, the deadpan drama in the middle, and the surrealistic conclusion.
The way you guys are dividing it is not really what I would call "four acts," but rather three acts plus an extended prologue. Now that I think of it, the apeman scenes shouldn't be considered an "act" because they are unnecessary in a narrative sense. You could cut them out entirely and start at the moon base and it wouldn't change the story at all. It's an unusual structure in any case.
Hey all - thanks Rev - nice to find the time to post again - work keeps one busy!
Structurally-speaking, yes, it is debatable (and likely intentionally) on where one act stops and one starts...or what qualifies as an act. I've always seen 2001 in these four main segments:
1. pre-dawn of man, the 2nd monolith, rise of the machines (or the first tool of violence, what have you)
2. moon flight to the 3rd monolith
3. HAL segment: man vs. machine
4. Into the fourth and final monolith and the Star Child (ascension of man/mind over matter)
Note: as for the first monolith...you know that part at the very beginning where you're just looking at a blank screen for a few minutes -I think that's the first monolith (or if you will, the whole damned movie is in this monolith).
Of course, that's subject to interpretation, but I think we can all agree this is one unconventional movie in both pacing and story-telling.
"the apeman scenes shouldn't be considered an "act" because they are unnecessary in a narrative sense. You could cut them out entirely and start at the moon base and it wouldn't change the story at all."
Not sure about that - I think the presence of the monolith (it is kinda shown as being responsible for man's evolution) and the first violent use of tools (and the bone's transformation into a stellar ship) are pretty crucial to the overall story. But to each is their own and all that :)
Quote from: clockworkcanary on July 12, 2012, 11:30:10 AM
Not sure about that - I think the presence of the monolith (it is kinda shown as being responsible for man's evolution) and the first violent use of tools (and the bone's transformation into a stellar ship) are pretty crucial to the overall story. But to each is their own and all that :)
They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else. The choice to make it such a major element of the movie is a bold one, and another way Kubrick ignores plotting 101.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 12, 2012, 05:26:13 PM
They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else.
Well, so could the whole HAL killing Poole thing.
Bowman, in radio transmission, or Captain's Log type deal: "I had to shut down HAL. He was malfunctioning, which culminated in Poole's death."
I dunno-being an artist myself-I won't try to dissect it.
It is what it is.
And I think it is f**king a piece of art.
You don't have to understand Dali-(who can?) to love his work.
I understand it-because I read Arthur Clarkes story "Childhoods End."
But before that-2001 was a film I seeen on it's initial release in the late 60's when I was just a wee Monster Kid-and I found it visually cartoon like.
Kubrick designs his films like your looking at the panels of a comic book.-Like wise Jack Kirby makes his art-and Will Eisner-cinematic. It's 80% visual.
They're both visual forms,basically.
I didnt CARE what was going on.
It had apes,and spacemen and planets and cool special effects....DAM! :thumbup:
Oh- WELCOME HOME CLOCKWORK!!!! :cheers: :thumbup: :drink:
Heh, I do admit that a great many scenes in this movie could have been minimized to only a couple of minutes.
Quote from: ulthar on July 12, 2012, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 12, 2012, 05:26:13 PM
They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else.
Well, so could the whole HAL killing Poole thing.
Bowman, in radio transmission, or Captain's Log type deal: "I had to shut down HAL. He was malfunctioning, which culminated in Poole's death."
That's true, but structurally HAL was a subplot (contemporaneous with the main plot), not backstory (happened before the main plot). Giving a subplot such prominence is another way Kubrick breaks the narrative mold.
Quote from: RCMerchant on July 12, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
Oh- WELCOME HOME CLOCKWORK!!!! :cheers: :thumbup: :drink:
Hey! Thanks :) :cheers:
Quote from: Rev. Powell on July 12, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
That's true, but structurally HAL was a subplot (contemporaneous with the main plot), not backstory (happened before the main plot). Giving a subplot such prominence is another way Kubrick breaks the narrative mold.
All true, and I don't disagree with your point. I just like batting this stuff back and forth.
To me, this is an example of how this movie has
texture, for lack of a better word. It's layered, seamed, folded.
The other value I see in 2001 is comparative. We can back-n-forth about it's intrinsic merits (or faults), but what do we have when we start to make comparisons to other good or not-so-good movies?
Still trying to place it in the bad movies board in mind, though....