03 May 11
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly -
2001 checks all the boxes. Landmark film, Great Director, great technique and visuals. Further, 2001 is the perfect movie for a certain group of people. You know who they are. The internet wonks, the comic book guys, the SF buffs, --the student or professor of philosophy/art/film. A person with a passion for avante-garde films with wacky imagery and little else. They're the type of people who find a college thesis' worth of material from the dialogue in the Matrix sequels, they're the ones that boldly declare a film 'art' and anybody else who disagrees with them 'just didn't get it.' 2001 is art alright. The kind of art that I can only liken as being assaulted and nearly beaten to death by an Andy Warhol painting. Yes this movie is art, and you will hate it for that.
http://rcocean.blogspot.com/2009/04/2001-space-oddessy-sucks-or-overrated.html
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitSome people who saw this movie for the first time when it was released, surrounded by other moviegoers just as ignorant of what they were about to see, and had no Star Wars movies behind them, will still get a shiver out of the sudden, then-unexpected match cut from bone to "Pan American" spaceship, and see the next floating object, the pen as a statement that the then-futuristic notion of scheduled space flight would someday be mundane.
Is this one of those movies no one likes but pretends to like so they can seem cultured or a true sci-fi fan of some kind? I don't think there ever was or will ever be a movie more boring than this one. The package should have a warning like you see on some medications, "may cause drowsiness, do not operate heavy machinery!" with the sleepy eye guy right ...[text shortened]... ok shop and lives in his mother's basement.
I rate this movie F minus minus.
P-
Other people won't get a shiver. Try it:
Everything about that scene from the abruptness of the cuts to a view of the Earth that few had seen (or had seen in color) , to the flight attendant's shoes and headwear, and the relativity of rotation of the shuttle when docking, was intentional and, at the time, was instructive. We were seeing a future that has yet to be fully realized.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
03 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitThe entirety. The story, the atmosphere, the clear love for the genre. The lack of a stupid shooting scene which doesn't fit with the rest.
What excites you most about this movie? The 7 minute walk to the moon craft, or the 12 minute flight to gather his dead friends body?
Perhaps it was the 8 minutes of shifted colors of the Grand Canyon on his way to 'infinity'?
Yes, I do have the patience to sit through 7 minutes of atmosphere building. I am, after all, older than 13.
I know sci-fi,
There's another part of your problem. Your next lesson is to learn to differentiate between science fiction and skiffy, and not to call the former by the latter name.
And if you learn that difference and prefer skiffy to science fiction, believe me, I'm fine with that. Not everybody has to prefer the more refined, more intellectual forms of imaginative fiction. Me, I prefer Burgundy to Bordeaux. But please do not complain that science fiction does not play by skiffy rules. Then I'll promise not to claim that Bordeaux is bad wine because it doesn't always have Burgundy's spice.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
03 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitErm... nooooooo...
The Real Reason Its Rated Highly -
A person with a passion for avante-garde films with wacky imagery and little else. They're the type of people who find a college thesis' worth of material from the dialogue in the Matrix sequels,
The Matrix films are as hardcore science fiction, and as thesis-worthy, as Georgette Heyer is solid historical fiction.
they're the ones that boldly declare
Cheap shot - always a sign of the cheap argument.
I guess his blog is "real art".
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
03 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitHonest but ignorant.
Here are some honest reviews of the movie.
Kubrick takes a short story by Clarke and pads it out to 141 minutes.
Did not do the research. Clarke and Kubrick did the expansion together.
a gay computer?
Douchebag. Loses the argument.
Richard
04 May 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueSo name another sci-fi movie please. Both Blade Runner and many of the Star Wars movies show up on lists of Sci-fi movies.
The entirety. The story, the atmosphere, the clear love for the genre. The lack of a stupid shooting scene which doesn't fit with the rest.
Yes, I do have the patience to sit through 7 minutes of atmosphere building. I am, after all, older than 13.
[b]I know sci-fi,
There's another part of your problem. Your next lesson is to learn to diffe ...[text shortened]... laim that Bordeaux is bad wine because it doesn't always have Burgundy's spice.
Richard[/b]
Also, after looking up the word skiffy I realize you have no idea what you are talking about and make up your own definitions to fit your view of what is a good movie and what is not.
I already asked you to name another sci-fi movie and you didn't bother.
P-