My opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Yeah,but i dont care...

Then bother replying to the thread? You're wasting up message board space with your uselessness.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Because if someone doesn't look at my argument as a whole,but rather concentrate on finding some mistakes in my post that are not important at all,than that person doesn't want to go into serious discussion and will never convince that he is wrong,even if i prove that like i did...arguments are only thing that matters in discussion,nothing else.This whole treat is waste of message board.Cheers.

What? You're gibberish posts confuses me. Who is going to convince you that they are wrong. NO ONE IS WRONG IN A DISCUSSION ON TASTE.

That's my whole point.

TheUsualSuspect,don't tell me i make gibberish posts just because they confuses you.That is your problem because you cant understand them,i was clear.I don't care if you agree or not,or do you understand or not,but don't say for my posts that they are gibberish.

And we have a problem with A DISCUSSION ON TASTE in this treat...Why? Because point of this treat is not ,,Discussion about 2001,, point of this treat is ,,Spit on 2001,,...starting position of every treat or debate should be neutral,not negative or positive,and then you let people discuss on that.Point of this whole treat is opinion of person who opened it,he spit on film,and now who don't think like that has to ,,defend,, a movie and whole treat is about opinion of MrPink...everyone has opinions,i don't know why is opinion of MrPink so special to deserve a whole treat unless someone is forcing him to watch a movie.There are zillions of films that i find boring,but i wouldn't open a treat to stick that on everyone nose...cheers.

You're confusing me even more. Treat? Spit? WTF are you talking about mate? No one understands them, what's with the punctuation?

I all-ready told that English is not my native language,it is clear that is not,but you have problem to understand again...i also didn't except from you that you will understand what i sad in my last post...sorry,man,but i have to tell you i gave up from you since second post...for persons like you,people need to paint something,and i have no time or nerves for that,i hope that you are troll,if you are not,go read some book...i was referring to a guy that opened this treat.Cheers.

When did you tell me that? Not in this thread. Sorry I don't follow your posts around here to know what you're talking about. 2001 is boring, plain and simple. You're the one telling people they are wrong and if they don't like this film they don't like sci/fi.

Re-watched this in a theatre sometime a couple of months back. Still a favourite.

I didn't really spend much time on the "gibberish" above, but watching 2001 on a large screen could go a long way to make somebody understand what's good about it.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

There is a video of some guy tripping out on acid while watching this film in the theatre. He freaked out so bad that they had to throw him out!!!!

I found a video that synchronised the entire "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" section of the film with Pink Floyd's "Echoes". It was...something.

Kubrick had only intended this movie to be talked about forever, he didn't actually want to make a good movie.

__________________

'Pretentious' is such an overused word when critiquing a movie. It's easy, reductive and stupid.

For sure. It's used in just as dumb a way in the music world as well.

Citizen Kane sucks.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

:d

Not a fan. I hesitate to use the word "pretentious", given your previous post, but I don't think giving up any entertainment value whatsoever in return for inventive camerawork is a very fair trade-off.

The problem is that people assume one person revolutionizes things, and that's just not how it works. The Beatles weren't the only band who experimented, Elvis did nothing, Citizen Kane HELPED spawn inventive camerawork. Michael Curtiz gets little credit for helping in that area, and I mean before Casablanca. Hell, some silent filmmakers did just as much.

Exactly. Having seen CK, I don't even think it's the best example of auteurism. Sure, it's one of them, but Vertigo, 2001, Apocalypse Now, and Raging Bull are all better examples of a director using film to create a personal work of art, IMO. And they're also much more entertaining.