My opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey

I think that if there is one filmmaker who deserves to be called pretentious it would be Terence Malick. Seriously, I feel that his films, specially The Tree of Life, tend to be self indulgent.

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those obvious masterpieces that I have difficulty understanding how a person can say that it is not one of the greatest movies ever made. In fact, I think this is the film that most commonly shows up in the top 10's of people here. Though I can understand if someone says it is pretentious. I have also seem people claim that even Spirited Away is pretentious.

I didn't like The Three of Life either, but hey there's this other film, I think it's the prequel or something, called The Tree of Life. It's pretty great.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

That's bully on a non-native english speaker.

I thought Tree of Life was brilliant in parts, my favorite bit being the "cosmos scene". As a whole it's disappointingly half-baked, the story doesn't hold a candle to 2001. I can understand comparing the two though, both insanely ambitious movies. The entire ending of Tree of Life is just mind numbingly bad.

2001's ending, suffers from the same kind of thing. It's so abstract and open to interpretation, that it becomes an exhibition of technical film-making (ie : a giant shootout from an action flick). Dullea's involvement is outstanding, the lasers streaming across his helmet as he's warped into the white room, the echoing screeches coming from outside of it, the way he ages into an old man. All great stuff, but the color dyed nature footage, the lava lamp, crash down on the imaginative sequence like a wrecking ball.



Why is this amazing stuff in some mediocre movie ?



And this mediocre stuff in an amazing movie ?

__________________

33 years of technological advancement?

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

It may come from the wrong-headed approach that believes what makes a great film great is how few flaws it has.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

The strongest criticism that can be levied against The Tree Of Life is Malick's faith in creationism, which is a poor excuse for explaining the fragility of life.

I think it's pretty clear what happens. Before I give mine, what's your interpretation?

Yeah but that's the thing about 2001. The effects haven't aged at all, until you hit the ending.

I remember posting a shot-for-shot breakdown of the entire sequence. I can't find it though.

I know what you mean, but I think the fourth act is a pretty integral part of the movie. The first three acts all tie in together, but the fourth is decidedly the odd one out.

Damn, I'd love to read it! I agree the worm hole effects are a bit cheesy but I think they work ok. I mean, what would going through a worm hole be like anyway? I think a lot of what he was seeing was a hallucination anyway.

How could it be the odd one out of the three acts lead to the events of the fourth? That makes zero sense.

At the time, the Star Gate sequence that Meat dislikes was state of the art. The manipulation of the landscapes and the light effects were obviously done to make them appear more foreign and trippy. Dave is going on the Ultimate Trip - from human to Star Child. The other, earlier physical effects are ultra-realistic but Kubrick needed something otherworldly for this journey, and people liked it at the time. Many people still like it. I love Star Wars but I don't feel 2001 needs to be monkeyed around with to improve its effects or bring it "up to date".

The only one that leads directly into it is the third act. Every other act establishes new characters. It's also very surreal, stripped down of any dialogue, and widely open to interpretation.

As for handing 2001 to George Lucas for a rework, probably not the best idea.

The recurring character is the monolith. That's all you need to know.

The true star of the movie.

2001's ending FX are perfectly fine. Better than fine. They look suitably mysterious and psychedelic, and serve to convey that Dave is going through something amazing.

If I were ever to put it on and see modern CGI, I would lose all hope for our species and go live in a cave.

43 years actually. 2001 is from 1968, The Tree of Life is from 2011. Yes, 2001 is making 45 years this year. It is already nearly half a century old.

I actually find the particular sequence of 2001 you posted more impressive than the Tree of Life sequence. For me this 14 minutes sequence of the Tree of Life fells rather "retarded" while the sequence from 2001 fells direct and powerful. Sorry, these were the only words I found to describe these two sequences.

Time for a remake!