Support NeoGAF

[Apath]

There is absolutely nothing random about it. Everything is chosen very specifically and carefully, and every part leads logically (if unexpectedly) into every other part.

I understand that. I meant the acid trip at the end. All of the colors and random bullshit. Music sucked too.

 

[Seraphinianus]

its funny because the word "pretentious" makes the user seem pretentious. I mean, you even start out with the most pretentious critic argument of them all: "I love this, I love that, I love everything that's like this, thus when I say something sucks, it really sucks." lol

why even attempt that? You used the word to keep yourself from actually having to think about the movie.

For one thing, the movie was made in fucking 1968! Movies about space were kind of a big deal back then. As in, seeing moving, color pictures of space was highly novel. If it seems like the movie is self-indulgent, it's not...this was clearly made to blow the audience's minds and the anecdote about the cinematographer complaining about small screen clears this up.

 

[Apath]

For one thing, the movie was made in fucking 1968! Movies about space were kind of a big deal back then. As in, seeing moving, color pictures of space was highly novel. If it seems like the movie is self-indulgent, it's not...this was clearly made to blow the audience's minds and the anecdote about the cinematographer complaining about small screen clears this up.

I can understand that and I agree, but then surely it's just as understandable that the effect is lost on a modern day audience?

Movie may have been good back in the day, but now? Meh.

 

[devenger]

Kenak's jimmies remain unrustled. What you gonna do?

 

[Jex]

Maybe the movie is too BIG.

Can't both be true? I think they can.

 

[Mudkips]

The ending was none of these.

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

 

[Seraphinianus]

I can understand that and I agree, but then surely it's just as understandable that the effect is lost on a modern day audience?

Movie may have been good back in the day, but now? Meh.

That's fair enough. I generally don't watch anything before 1960 aside from Hitchcock and Kurosawa. The OP's text gives some fair points, but the thread title screams "guy intimidated by popular movie; lashes out." It just doesn't seem like it was considered in any kind of context, which would've cleared up any misconceptions about pretense or "autofellatio." but maybe it's a lot to ask people to acknowledge that a film is old and that they might not understand the context.

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

damn, if kubrick were still alive, he would probably consult you for tips and advice.

 

[StuBurns]

I can understand that and I agree, but then surely it's just as understandable that the effect is lost on a modern day audience?

Movie may have been good back in the day, but now? Meh.

I think it still works wonderfully. In fact I was blown away by how crisp and vibrant the wormhole trip looks on bluray. Personally I'd bin the flying over mountain ranges with radical colour shifts, I don't think it looks good, but I could pick faults like that with any film. I think it's as relevant now as ever.

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

Nonsense. The film ends as it began with the monolith evolving a species, you just get to watch it first hand because Dave is your avatar for the film. It was clearly planned before shooting began, they didn't piece it together and hoped it worked.

 

[The Librarian]

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

The movie followed its theme to a proper conclusion.

 

[Solo]

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

The whole movie dealt with evolution. I don't think man reaching the epitome of evolution and being reborn as a higher form of sentient being is really "random crap".

 

[Government-man]

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

I cringed reading this. You've misunderstood the film.

 

[Z_Y]

Just watched it on YouTube via my phone. Meh.

 

[patrickthehedgehog]

I think it still works wonderfully. In fact I was blown away by how crisp and vibrant the wormhole trip looks on bluray. Personally I'd bin the flying over mountain ranges with radical colour shifts, I don't think it looks good, but I could pick faults like that with any film. I think it's as relevant now as ever.

No kidding! The stargate scene has always impressed me. It's very cool to explore how they did something that looks so incredible back in the day. I still don't completely understand the process. It's the coolest practical effect I've ever seen. I do agree with you on the mountains. That just didn't hold up.

 

[Seraphinianus]

Just watched it on YouTube via my phone. Meh.

david lynch is gonna be so pissed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

 

[googleplex]

I just like the Op I just re-watched 2001 and 2010 on netflex recently. And come to almost the same conclusion, though I really enjoyed 2010 much more.

2001 = Beautiful visuals and music with shit pacing and horrible acting.

 

[Juanadams]

david lynch is gonna be so pissed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

Lol, once they put netflix on the iphone I started streaming inland empire on my phone around my friends as a joke.

 

[bob_arctor]

This and Blade Runner, the crown jewels of my HD-DVD collection. Think I'll watch it again this weekend with the kids. The "black stick" as they called it really freaked them out on first viewing, had to field questions about it for days after.

 

[VALIS]

After you've watched, read or listened to a piece of art that seems confusing and complex, GO READ ABOUT IT.

One of the reasons that higher minded art never seems to catch on in a big way is people watch something then get angry or feel stupid they didn't understand everything the first time around.

Why are you supposed to understand everything in one shot? There's nothing wrong with relying on other sources besides your own thoughts to help illuminate something.

 

[revolverjgw]

i have this on Bluray but have never watched it because i think my TV is too small

You never know unless you try

 

[levious]

I know it wasn't. I'm saying there was simply no good way to end that movie.
It did not do any of those three things I listed (that many other films do), because they knew that would be fucking shitty. What they did do, however, was also fucking shitty, and just screamed "I don't know how to end this, here's some random crap, read some meaning into it for yourself.".

this is you at your worst

 

[Juanadams]

This and Blade Runner, the crown jewels of my HD-DVD collection. Think I'll watch it again this weekend with the kids. The "black stick" as they called it really freaked them out on first viewing, had to field questions about it for days after.

Bah two of the slowest most boring movies I've ever seen. You film snobs are so fucking pretentious. Can't you ever watch something that isn't just the director jerking himself off visually on camera.

 

[The Librarian]

Bah two of the slowest most boring movies I've ever seen. You film snobs are so fucking pretentious. Can't you ever watch something that isn't just the director jerking himself off visually on camera.

I like the cut of your jib, buddy.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Just to throw my two cents in:

My film professor, way back in the day, invited the cinematographer from 2001 to come and watch it with his class talk to the students about it. They watched it on a projector, so they could get some big screen action.

Apparently, about 35-40 mins into the action (lol) Unsworth stormed out. Didn't come back until the end of the movie. Had a smoke and all that. When he came back, he said how poorly the movie had translated to the small screen and that watching it there, without the large movie theatre experience, made the movie seem so static during the long shots that he couldn't take it. He said the shots were supposed to make you lose yourself in the movie/space and having it on a small screen really didn't convey that. To the point that he was frustrated/upset.

So there. You aren't alone. If the cinematographer could say that about the movie, then you have a pretty decent source of companionship in your feelings about the movie.

It's a bit like Patton - the original effect intended on the famous opening speech is lost on small screens.

 

[dojokun]

It's a bit like Patton - the original effect intended on the famous opening speech is lost on small screens.

The slow movements in space are definitely less appreciated when on a smaller screen. That being said, the first time I saw this movie was on my 40 inch HDTV and I still lost myself in the vastness and slowness. I loved it. Maybe it's because I have a vivid imagination so as long as I know what I'm supposed to see, I see it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I just like the Op I just re-watched 2001 and 2010 on netflex recently. And come to almost the same conclusion, though I really enjoyed 2010 much more.

2001 = Beautiful visuals and music with shit pacing and horrible acting.

The acting in 2001 is GREAT, particularly Keir Dullea. People say the characters in this movie are flat or undeveloped, but I beg to differ; the dialogue has plenty of wit in it, and the characters, while not theatrical (which is what we associate with "great acting"), are very realistic and deeply-drawn. Watch Dullea as he unplugs HAL; his eyes show fucking torture. And the pacing is perfect for what the movie needs to achieve.

Mudkips: The ending is many things, but it most certainly is not anti-climactic. Indeed, if there is any possible criticism of the movie, it's that there's too MUCH climax, that the stargate sequence is too drawn out; it's not, but it could seem that way. There is absolutely nothing random or out-of-place about the ending. It's unexpected and unusual, but shouldn't something great be both of those things? What's wrong with a director giving the audience something resisting of interpretation and asking them to fill it in for themselves? Hell, it does that probably better than any film that I've ever seen, which is part of what makes it so great. It is NOTHING like the stupid blank canvases that you posted.

 

[jett]

One of the greatest movies ever, my personal favorite. I wish I could watch a 70mm print one day.

 

[Max Armstrong]

One of the greatest movies ever, my personal favorite. I wish I could watch a 70mm print one day.

You remind me of something...

Where the fuck is my Lawrence of Arabia on Blu-Ray? Like seriously, this should have been the first movie ever released on it. I hope they get to it really soon, in the top 5 best looking movie ever, that's for sure.

 

[Discotheque]

You remind me of something...

Where the fuck is my Lawrence of Arabia on Blu-Ray? Like seriously, this should have been the first movie ever released on it. I hope they get to it really soon, in the top 5 best looking movie ever, that's for sure.

They've been hinting at that shit since the bloody format was invented. It's always 'next year'. Though I'm thinking 2011 seems likely now.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Dullea is flat because that's the kind of emotional attitude a person would need to keep in order to not go insane in the middle of nowhere (literally) on a months-long trip to another planet. It also helps keep the gap between him and HAL narrower, which it wouldn't really be if one was just a cold emotionless machine and the other was a hysterical human being. Because then it makes it too easy for the audience to sympathize with one "side" of this conflict the way they would with the vast majority of fiction. So I think the flatness of his performance (for the majority of the runtime) is appropriate to both the setting and the narrative goals of the film.

Of course, none of this would really work without HAL 9000 being as interesting and complex as he/it is as a character, which is amazing considering he/it is nothing more than a disembodied voice and a red-lit lens as far as the audience is concerned on a purely perceptual level.

Which is a long way of saying I agree with you, buddy.

All good points. I think the idea of the "Oscar performance" has sort of inoculated us against the idea of a performance being good on the virtue of its realism. There's still plenty of art in Dullea's performance (for the reasons that you described, though I think "flat" is a strange word to pick; it's pretty damn expressive in a lot of ways, just kinda cold), but because it doesn't rub it in the audience's face at all, people tend to just look at it and think that it's bad or merely functionary. 2001 simply wouldn't be as good as it is were it not for the humanity of all of the characters, HAL included; it's actually a pretty perfect expression of the idea that story comes out of character, even one as seemingly grand and "transcendent" as 2001's.

 

[Raiden]

I feel the same way you do about some other "classic" films, but i absolutely loved this one.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

In general, I'd say the labels of "cold" or "unemotional" are rather poor descriptors of Kubrick. He takes a distance from his subjects, but most of the time, the films are very, very emotional. Hell, Paths of Glory should have earned him the title of bleeding heart!

 

[devenger]

Dullea is flat because that's the kind of emotional attitude a person would need to keep in order to not go insane in the middle of nowhere

It's also, IMO, to emphasize the accomplishment that is HAL. He's the most human sounding crew member on the ship.

Mudkips, it's almost always wrong to tell someone if they didn't like something, they didn't get it. But you, sir, did not get it.

There's nothing wrong with that, except you quit and called it random crap. I certainly didn't know what the hell was going on the first time I saw it, I was too busy being blown away.

Does everything only get one viewing from you? Because the better stuff (books, movies, art) takes more than one look to appreciate.

edit: Sorry, he's seen it twice. Guess I should have read his post twice.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Uh, he mentions in his post that he's seen it at least two times.

 

[devenger]

Uh, he mentions in his post that he's seen it at least two times.

Schooled, I'll edit to make myself look less like a douche. That's what it's for right?

Sorry, Mudkips. I'll try to pay more attention.

 

[Zoramon089]

Bah two of the slowest most boring movies I've ever seen. You film snobs are so fucking pretentious. Can't you ever watch something that isn't just the director jerking himself off visually on camera.

Shots fired

Spoiler

But I agree somewhat. I felt this movie and Blade Runner were both overrated, but I wouldn't call them the most boring movies I've ever seen by a long run

 

[Juanadams]

Shots fired

Spoiler

But I agree somewhat. I felt this movie and Blade Runner were both overrated, but I wouldn't call them the most boring movies I've ever seen by a long run

You obviously haven't read a single one of my posts so far in this thread other then that one have you?

 

[Discotheque]

I do love the film but when the dude was tripping out/evolving after visiting the monolith, that just lasted a bit too long. I love surreal stuff but it could have been edited a bit.

Otherwise a fantastic movie. And for sci-fi diehards they'd probably like 2010 more (because they're closeminded jerks! jk jk)

 

[Zoramon089]

You obviously haven't read a single one of my posts so far in this thread other then that one have you?

Edit: Ohh your posts...I didn't pay too much attention to who said what, just read the arguments

 

[Discotheque]

I've read through most of the thread actually. Why do you think I haven't?

Because he wasn't being serious and he liked this movie.

 

[Zoramon089]

The thing is, there's the group that thinks the movie was too vague and could have benefit from more explanation and the group who thinks it was left vague intentionally so that the interpretation was left to the viewer. The problem that arises from this is the question of where to draw the line? There really isn't a solid answer because it's completely arbitrary and differs from viewer to viewer.

I'm of the group that feels that a bit more explanation could have helped. I'm all for art meant for interpretation, as it allows greater freedom and appreciation of it when it's not all spelled out for you, however, I feel like some people let their love of the director get the best of them and legitimate complaints are simply excused

 

[Max Armstrong]

My mother's been a huge fan of Kubrick since the late 60s (2001 is her favorite movie of all time, natch) and I was always jealous of her describing the experience of seeing Barry Lyndon in theaters when it first came out in '75.

Your mother is awesome. My mom thought the Smurf trailer was good and she thought it was sad that Harry Potter was not in 3D... Let's say my love for film does not come from my family hahaha

 

[Snaku]

Fuck. I want to watch Barry Lyndon now.

Do you guys think it's worth getting this beauty?

http://i.imgur.com/eua1V.jpg[IMG]

[URL]http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004O724NG/?tag=neogaf0e-20[/URL]

Even if I already have; 2001, Clockwork, Shining, Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket?[/QUOTE]

Hot damn, knew I held off on The Shining, FMJ, Clockwork, and Strangelove for a reason. Looking forward to seeing Barry Lyndon.

[QUOTE=DevelopmentArrested]what time are you lining up for Transformers 3, OP?[/QUOTE]

So because I didn't appreciate a particular Kubrick film, I'm supposed to be hotly anticipating Michael Bay's next crime against humanity?

[QUOTE=Smision]its funny because the word "pretentious" makes the user seem pretentious. I mean, you even start out with the most pretentious critic argument of them all: "I love this, I love that, I love everything that's like this, thus when I say something sucks, it really sucks." lol

why even attempt that?[/quote]

Why? Because I thought this film would be right up my alley, given my tastes. I don't hate the film, I'm just baffled by the universal praise amongst my peers.

[QUOTE=Smision]For one thing, the movie was made in fucking 1968! Movies about space were kind of a big deal back then. As in, seeing moving, color pictures of space was highly novel. If it seems like the movie is self-indulgent, it's not...this was clearly made to blow the audience's minds and the anecdote about the cinematographer complaining about small screen clears this up.[/QUOTE]

So your argument is that it's good in the same way that Avatar is good?

[QUOTE]My film professor, way back in the day, invited the cinematographer from 2001 to come and watch it with his class talk to the students about it. They watched it on a projector, so they could get some big screen action.

Apparently, about 35-40 mins into the action (lol) Unsworth stormed out. Didn't come back until the end of the movie. Had a smoke and all that. When he came back, he said how poorly the movie had translated to the small screen and that watching it there, without the large movie theatre experience, made the movie seem so static during the long shots that he couldn't take it. He said the shots were supposed to make you lose yourself in the movie/space and having it on a small screen really didn't convey that. To the point that he was frustrated/upset.

So there. You aren't alone. If the cinematographer could say that about the movie, then you have a pretty decent source of companionship in your feelings about the movie.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the film would have been far more engrossing in a theater.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

It was the first realistic sci-fi movie and so far there haven't been many others.

 

[MjFrancis]

The movie is an experimental audiovisual experience and proves that movies are not just a set of frames with a linear plot

pre·ten·tious
Adjective: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

The word's been thrown around a lot in this thread, but these two examples were softballs waiting to smacked into center-left field.

I enjoyed it, but I'll never watch it again save for a trip to a theatre or possibly another Blu-Ray viewing on a much larger television than my own. It shows how visually impressive cinema can be in the hands of a great director, but I'm not going to dickride this like it's the second coming.

*edit* misread StuBurns, I'm a jackass.

 

[mokeyjoe]

It fits the entire story of the human race from its inception to it's transcendence into two and a half hours. Like it or not it's an impressive cinematic achievement, there's never really been a more epic story.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Well, MjFrancis, I don't think that it's at all pretentious to suggest that this might be the all-time greatest film, or at least that it's in contention for the title.

 

[The Librarian]

It fits the entire story of the human race from its inception to it's transcendence into two and a half hours. Like it or not it's an impressive cinematic achievement, there's never really been a more epic story.

I agree with this post.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

This movie could've been done just as well in about an hour. There's way too much pointless dragging out. It's really boring to watch after the first time

 

[MjFrancis]

Well, MjFrancis, I don't think that it's at all pretentious to suggest that this might be the all-time greatest film, or at least that it's in contention for the title.

There's numerous people in this thread who stated that it's one of, if not the best movie ever made. I didn't quote them because that's a very reasonable way to describe or discuss the film. The lines I quoted, on the other hand, are just silly.

 

[StuBurns]

The word's been thrown around a lot in this thread, but these two examples were softballs waiting to smacked into center-left field.

How does my quote equate to that definition of pretentious? It's countering another post suggesting it's transcending it's medium, to say a film is not transcendental is not pretentious, at least not to my understanding of the term.