XerXis Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I just tried watching this so called master piece. I have to admit, I gave up after 50 minutes, I just couldn't take it anymore. Is it just me or is this film really boring. I mean the first 3 minutes i was trying to find out what was wrong with my dvd player as the only thing i saw was a black screen. Normally i like slow paced movies, i even like classical music. But this film only had music, it had no story, no character development (heck, even no characters). I just feel very dissapointed. Probably a lot of people are going to say that I missed something. But I don't care, movies are supposed to be entertainment, art is supposed to make you think or just go 'aaaaaaaaaaah pretty'. This movie did neither for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Worst movie ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googintosh Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Some Kubrick movies have the pace of a chess match, it's true. The reason there is no character development is as individuals they're insignificant to the philosophical or allegorical meaning of the movie. Developing characters may have been inconsequential and/or may have tainted the point of the movie. It's an "artsy" movie in my eyes, and was considered avantgarde in it's time. I liked it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPressland Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 CRAP!!!! lol maybe good for the oldies that belived that would all happen! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashpickinman Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Best movie ever!! My favorite movie and my favorite book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 Worst movie ever. Sure! I guess you have a good debate for the philosophical allegories presented in this movie. CRAP!!!! lolmaybe good for the oldies that belived that would all happen! lol How old are you? I mean. If you believe that the intention of this movie was to portray a future then this movie is not for you. The settings its just a path for the metaphore, not the message itself. This new generation has been spoiled with horrid hollywood flickers :( Is it just me or is this film really boring. Its just you expecting a normal movie. This is not that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidVicious Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 It's a classic, and a really good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hekkyUK Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I tried to watch it too but just couldn't get into it! And I like to think I'm quite patient and that I will always watch an ENTIRE film before deciding if it was any good or not. Strangely enough, I REALLY enjoyed the 'sequel' 2010! According to IMDB, more people liked the first one! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 Sure! I guess you have a good debate for the philosophical allegories presented in this movie. How old are you? I mean. If you believe that the intention of this movie was to portray a future then this movie is not for you. The settings its just a path for the metaphore, not the message itself. This new generation has been spoiled with horrid hollywood flickers :( Its just you expecting a normal movie. This is not that. two things, i was expecting an artsy movie, not a normal one, and I've read the novel. The novel was just way better then the movie. It didn't just show random apes throwing with bones. It had a STORY and it made me THINK, unlike the movie which in my opinion is just trying to show of the special effects. While throwing in a lot of advertising by the way: in the first 40 minutes i saw: IBM, panam, Hilton and many others, not what i expect from an art movie ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 I tried to watch it too but just couldn't get into it! And I like to think I'm quite patient and that I will always watch an ENTIRE film before deciding if it was any good or not.Strangely enough, I REALLY enjoyed the 'sequel' 2010! According to IMDB, more people liked the first one! LOL! Because its better. Look. Im not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. But there are some things that are unbendable, unavoidable on movies and art in general. The most important are the intention and the execution. Both are unfold greatly in 2001. One of the best by Kubrick along the Clock Work Orange and Dr Strangelove two things, i was expecting an artsy movie, not a normal one, and I've read the novel. The novel was just way better then the movie. It didn't just show random apes throwing with bones. It had a STORY and it made me THINK, unlike the movie which in my opinion is just trying to show of the special effects. While throwing in a lot of advertising by the way: in the first 40 minutes i saw: IBM, panam, Hilton and many others, not what i expect from an art movie ;) Well, you were expecting wrong. No movie can be like the book its based nor viceversa. Its two different mediums reaching two different audiences with two different methods and ergo they have different intentions. A movie cant be judged against a book for the same reason a poem cant be compared to a song. The adversiting did have a point. The same point that Kubrck intended to aboard in his late project A.I. (A movie horribly raped by Spielberg) Go beyond comparisons and expectations. Thats how you judge art. by individual intention, not by a collective notion of standarization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumTrickery Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I've found most of the people that find it boring, simply don't understand the movie and the way it goes about presenting it. I'll admit, I find Kubrick to be quite worthless, but this is one of his only gems in my mind. Kubrick being boring and overrated is best left to a topic of its own though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napalm Frog Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Because its better... Both are unfold greatly in 2001. One of the best by Kubrick along the Clock Work Orange and Dr Strangelove. QFT. The film, as with those other two Kubrick films are probably in my top 10, if not top 25. I am part of the younger generation, too (well, I'm 20) yet still love 2001 so much. The book was amazing, and the movie was just extremely spine chilling. Granted, it's not shoing the dark side of humanity like a Clockwork Orange, or events as seen in Strangelove, but 2001 was a great venture into philosophy. Definately one of the best sci-fi flicks ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 QFT. The film, as with those other two Kubrick films are probably in my top 10, if not top 25. I am part of the younger generation, too (well, I'm 20) yet still love 2001 so much. The book was amazing, and the movie was just extremely spine chilling. Granted, it's not shoing the dark side of humanity like a Clockwork Orange, or events as seen in Strangelove, but 2001 was a great venture into philosophy. Definately one of the best sci-fi flicks ever. I am 23. Where do I belong? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Sure! I guess you have a good debate for the philosophical allegories presented in this movie. How old are you? I mean. If you believe that the intention of this movie was to portray a future then this movie is not for you. The settings its just a path for the metaphore, not the message itself. This new generation has been spoiled with horrid hollywood flickers :( Its just you expecting a normal movie. This is not that. Right.. I was actually forced to watch this movie as part of an assignment in college. Kind of hard to look past all the irrelevant crap that happens in the movie to get some deeper meaning of it. Let me guess... a painting about grass carries some deep meaning to you too right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 Right.. I was actually forced to watch this movie as part of an assignment in college. Kind of hard to look past all the irrelevant crap that happens in the movie to get some deeper meaning of it. Let me guess... a painting about grass carries some deep meaning to you too right? Well, after reading this I now know to who I am talking to. Lets leave it as it is. You are not yet open to learn beyond your own perceptions and I am not going to try to convince you. I dont judge you, its pretty normal and everyone goes over that phase. At least give this movie another try in a few years. It worths it (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azcodemonkey Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I love the movie. It's beautifully shot, and honestly has a pretty simple meaning to it, IMHO. But, I'm old, well -- older, and I watched it numerous times with my dad when I was a kid. We had many discussions about it. I think the meaning can be lost to some newer gens simply because it's a different time and different political climate than when it was shot. Kubrick was one of the finest social commentators in the film world, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googintosh Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Hollywood's been creativity throttled for a while. I'm sure they'll redo this movie in the future and include a sex scene and/or nudity, guns -- lots of shiny futuristic guns, explosions, expendable henchmen, and the token minority for comic relief. You'll love it guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lqv2015 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I have to admit, I gave up after 50 minutes You did 20 minutes better than I did. I've yet tried to get back to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattrobs Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Great parody in the Simpsons, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 Great parody in the Simpsons, though. Unfortunately (Or rather fortunately?) its because that parody that the film is know by newer generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I saw this movie at about the age when I might have been able to just grasp some of it's deeper concepts, but I don't think I was old enough to be able to give my account of it here. As far as I recall, I thought it was interesting, but very weird. It's one of those movies I've been wanting to pick up again, now that I'm in college and can understand it better. -Spenser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well, after reading this I now know to who I am talking to. Lets leave it as it is. You are not yet open to learn beyond your own perceptions and I am not going to try to convince you. I dont judge you, its pretty normal and everyone goes over that phase. At least give this movie another try in a few years. It worths it (Y) They were ruined by flashy, ILM-type effects from that Lucas film with that Hammil guy, Bobbie Fisher & Debbie Reynold's daughter and some guy named Ford. If you really WATCH the movie instead of trying to be an armchair critic, you'll find a whole lot of character development - it's just very subtle: 1) Dr. Heywood Floyd bumps into Russian friends at the space station and tries to answer questions about some rumors about strange happenings at Clavius, to whit he informs them that he has no idea what they're talking about. We next see Dr. Floyd at Clavius and we find out that there *is* something very secretive happening there. Hence, we learn that Dr. Floyd knows how to prop-up a good cover-story 2) We do learn some things about Poole & Bowman while they're on-board The Discovery, but I'll let you watch the movie again for the subtle clues. Let us not forget that it was also Stanley Kubrick that gave us "Apocalypse Now". Show me a good movie released this year that has ANY substantive character development - my bets are that you won't find one, because movies today are more about the sight-gag, the off-color jokes and the overboard & overdone effects. --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 They were ruined by flashy, ILM-type effects from that Lucas film with that Hammil guy, Bobbie Fisher & Debbie Reynold's daughter and some guy named Ford. If you really WATCH the movie instead of trying to be an armchair critic, you'll find a whole lot of character development - it's just very subtle: 1) Dr. Heywood Floyd bumps into Russian friends at the space station and tries to answer questions about some rumors about strange happenings at Clavius, to whit he informs them that he has no idea what they're talking about. We next see Dr. Floyd at Clavius and we find out that there *is* something very secretive happening there. Hence, we learn that Dr. Floyd knows how to prop-up a good cover-story 2) We do learn some things about Poole & Bowman while they're on-board The Discovery, but I'll let you watch the movie again for the subtle clues. Let us not forget that it was also Stanley Kubrick that gave us "Apocalypse Now". Show me a good movie released this year that has ANY substantive character development - my bets are that you won't find one, because movies today are more about the sight-gag, the off-color jokes and the overboard & overdone effects. --ScottKin Wrong quote? :p Because I am defending the movie. But, off topic. You might be quite wrong. This year?s closing might be one of the best ever, in the past months and in the following week we will have movies like: Babel by Gonzales I?arritu The Departed by Scorcese Pan?s Labirynth by Guillermo del Toro Children of men by Alfonso Cuaron Inland Empire by David Lynch The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky The new Lars Von Trier movie (I cant remember the name) Volver by Almodovar The Prestige The Perfume These are quite a selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azcodemonkey Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Wrong quote? :p Because I am defending the movie. But, off topic. You might be quite wrong. This year?s closing might be one of the best ever, in the past months and in the following week we will have movies like: Babel by Gonzales I?arritu The Departed by Scorcese Pan?s Labirynth by Guillermo del Toro Children of men by Alfonso Cuaron Inland Empire by David Lynch The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky The new Lars Von Trier movie (I cant remember the name) Volver by Almodovar The Prestige The Perfume These are quite a selection. You forgot Bora;) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted November 28, 2006 Veteran Share Posted November 28, 2006 You forgot Borat. ;) Well. Generally I never consider comedies :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts