My opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey

→ in
Tools    





MrPink's Avatar
BANNED
I spoke with many people who love this film. I heard a lot of explanations, each thinner than its predecessor. nothing has convinced me thet the end means anything. It sounds like people excuses kubrick , I really do not know what he was thinking ...

But it's more than that. Beyond that the movie does not understood, is pretentious. So pretentious that makes you just hate it. Each transmitter shot him "I am a genius! I'm a genius and created a brilliant film, a man inferior like you would never understand! If you do not see it twenty thousand times and will investigate all shot him, you do not deserve to understanding the hidden meanings found in it !!!".

It's not just the end bizarre, is all. The way he may, for example ... say the scene thet the astronaut fixes the spacecraft, and for several minutes at a time we just see the astronaut floating slowly toward the ship.
Now, any sane director would cut this shot, because he knows you can not make the audience watch for 2 minutes, an astronaut moving slowly. It's not commercialization, it is common sense. But Kubrick? Of course not. After all, who does not have the patience to sit down to watch an astronaut moving, not live to finish his amazing masterpiece.

And it's not just this scene, is all ... Minutes of darkness ... Long passages without words, fools horribly slow ... Kubrick did not care if his audience, who cares only about fulfilling the vision of his genius. And that was all right somehow, if we eventually get to discover the secret of himself and impressed by his genius. But no, Kubrick insisted on in it ourselves, mainly through speculation and endless digging in film that I really suffered, and I'm sure many here.

sorry for the spelling mistakes, if any. english is not my first language.



Well, you seem to be against meditative works with a level of intellect and requirement for actual thought and in favour of fast cuts, tight editing and exposition filled narrative.


And Michael Bay isn't stupid.



It's not just the end bizarre, is all. The way he may, for example ... say the scene thet the astronaut fixes the spacecraft, and for several minutes at a time we just see the astronaut floating slowly toward the ship. Now, any sane director would cut this shot, because he knows you can not make the audience watch for 2 minutes, an astronaut moving slowly. It's not commercialization, it is common sense. But Kubrick? Of course not.
ANY other director would have cut that shot, of course they would have. But Kubrick wasn't just any other director. The pacing, the way he allows the audience to sit, appreciate the visual beauty, the music, that uncanny, hauntingly surreal atmosphere that the aforementioned helps to achieve, is what makes 2001 such a genuinely unique experience. What you just described is precisely why the film is so polarising, why it went down in history, why we're still discussing it today, and a big part of why its creator is held in such high regard for his vision, fearlessness, and originality.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
If you don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey that is your right. It has always been liked though. It earned an enormous amount at the box office in 1968 when it was released and has always been massively popular. This is from the common viewer's perspective and not something limited to critics and "art house snobs" if you believe such a group exists. Now, the fact that it can be studied and discussed in film classes throughout the world just adds to its accessability to "everyone". Once again, I realize that not everyone likes it but there is no film which everyone likes.

I have my own interpretations of what happens in the film, and I believe many others do too. It's not that we know everything; it's just that we know enough to understand what seems to be the intended meaning of the overall film. Within the film are all kinds of other messages, including a mistrust of technology and governments and the fact that a single human being seems to be more important than all the technology in the world, even if you believe that human being to be incredibly boring.

I'm not sure what else to say. Kubrick was always a perfectionist and he certainly is here. I have watched the film dozens of times dating back to seeing it at the theatre in 1970. I'll admit to not "getting it" the first time when I was 14, but I knew I was watching something which was spectacular and unlike any thing I had ever seen, so it made watching it a compulsive experience. I certainly do think that movie audiences of the late '60s/early '70s had some awesome movies to watch and didn't consider themselves any more pretentious than you consider yourself. If people want to call Kubrick pretentious, go ahead, but trying to make a super realistic film in the context of a visionary sci-fi plot is something nobody had ever done before. The audiences of both 1968 and 2011 still enjoy the ride, at least for the most part.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Unreliable Narrator
If Kubrick did not care for his audience, why then are we impressed by his genius? You have made 2 claims but failed to elaborate or justify them.



I wrote a paper on the ending just for fun. I went into this Kubrick class saying "I will not write about 2001, everyone else will." but then no one else did, so I did.



Meh, I already summed up my opinion in the "Who Will Win The MoFo Movie Tournament" thread. I don't feel like writing another whole paragraph.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I think the movie is pretty important, but at the same time it's incredibly boring.

I did watch it when I was younger though, maybe in my mofo matured state I'll revisit it. As of right now though, I'll still call it overrated.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



It was forced on me when I was younger and apart from some striking images, forgot most of it. Loved it when rewatched, try again TUS



PJ_Movies's Avatar
Registered User
on second thought...maybe I have seen this film. I think I turned it off. Was this the one where the monkey hits the other monkey with a bone. Reminded me of my high school experience.



PJ_Movies's Avatar
Registered User
There is the phenomenon of greatly boring. Look at There Will Be Blood. It was good and boring at the same time. My buddy actually retitled it "There Will Be Boring".



I was actually enthralled by There Will Be Blood, it had one thing going for it that 2001 lacked. A stellar performance.
What about this stellar performance?




I was actually enthralled by There Will Be Blood, it had one thing going for it that 2001 lacked. A stellar performance.
I never really looked at it that way. Good point. I guess 2001 just wasn't a performance driven film, whereas There Will Be Blood very much was.



I spoke with many people who love this film. I heard a lot of explanations, each thinner than its predecessor. nothing has convinced me thet the end means anything. It sounds like people excuses kubrick , I really do not know what he was thinking ...

But it's more than that. Beyond that the movie does not understood, is pretentious. So pretentious that makes you just hate it. Each transmitter shot him "I am a genius! I'm a genius and created a brilliant film, a man inferior like you would never understand! If you do not see it twenty thousand times and will investigate all shot him, you do not deserve to understanding the hidden meanings found in it !!!".

It's not just the end bizarre, is all. The way he may, for example ... say the scene thet the astronaut fixes the spacecraft, and for several minutes at a time we just see the astronaut floating slowly toward the ship.
Now, any sane director would cut this shot, because he knows you can not make the audience watch for 2 minutes, an astronaut moving slowly. It's not commercialization, it is common sense. But Kubrick? Of course not. After all, who does not have the patience to sit down to watch an astronaut moving, not live to finish his amazing masterpiece.

And it's not just this scene, is all ... Minutes of darkness ... Long passages without words, fools horribly slow ... Kubrick did not care if his audience, who cares only about fulfilling the vision of his genius. And that was all right somehow, if we eventually get to discover the secret of himself and impressed by his genius. But no, Kubrick insisted on in it ourselves, mainly through speculation and endless digging in film that I really suffered, and I'm sure many here.

sorry for the spelling mistakes, if any. english is not my first language.
Your opinion on 2001 sucks.
This treat sucks.
Just because you failed to recognize art of 2001 does not mean that you can call this movie boring and everything.2001 is one of the rare sci-fi films .90 percent of so called sci-fi movies are concentrated more on action,romance,robots,monsters and other stupid stuff,while special effects are in second plan.2001 is real pure sci-fi,and you cant say that about lot of movies.If you dont like 2001,you don't like sci-fi genre...
And what is the point of this treat,does somebody tied you up to chair and made you watch this movie against your will?



on second thought...maybe I have seen this film. I think I turned it off. Was this the one where the monkey hits the other monkey with a bone. Reminded me of my high school experience.
:headdesk: