Jason Moyer on 12/4/2009 at 14:21
I don't think 2001 would make any sense whatsoever if you changed the ending. I guess the ending is confusing to a lot of people, but most people don't seem to understand the HAL sequences, either. It doesn't really help that Clarke's followup novels (including 2010) each had a unique focus rather than being part of a cohesive series.
242 on 12/4/2009 at 14:23
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Eyes Wide Shut - A total load of bollocks, all of the characters were completely unlikeable. That droning piano tune irritated the fuck out of me.
I liked the tune a lot, hummed it a while after the movie :)
Shakey-Lo on 12/4/2009 at 15:58
2001 is one of my absolute top favourite films of all time. Below that I would rank Lolita, then Dr. Strangelove, FMJ, and then the rest in no particular order, all are good.
(
http://bennettmedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/films-of-stanley-kubrick.html)
The above is one of my favourite videos on the internet.
I like to think I know my cinema - I majored in film at university, but more important than the classes was the huge library of films they had to borrow, where I was sometimes averaging a film a night, across the whole spectrum of cinema - and I truly think Kubrick was operating on a level that no other director has reached.
june gloom on 12/4/2009 at 18:02
Quote Posted by snauty
You obviously didn't get it at all. The ending is the perfect conclusion to the movies' premise. Like Kolya said.
It hasn't anything to do with drugs either, despite the loonies who only watch it stoned for yeah... like wow... totally awesome dude. But who listens to them.
You are the
last person to tell anyone they didn't get something. I
did understand the whole "next step in evolution" bit- the problem is that it's
not that obvious until after you've stepped away from the movie, examined it, and perhaps looked it up on the internet. And anyway, they could've portrayed it in a way that wasn't a fucking stupid waste of my time. So no, fuck 2001's ending.
Jackablade on 12/4/2009 at 18:16
You really have a problem with holding personal grudges, dethtoll.
Kolya on 12/4/2009 at 18:18
It's obvious right from the start, from the very first monolith, what's happening.
And the "LSD-trip" is not just an amazing effect and it's length well in tune with the pacing of the movie and having a meaning instead of just being eye-candy, it still looks fucking great after all these years. Something no one will say about today's CGI effects in 10 years to come.
Can you imagine how people at the end of the 60s must have felt watching this in a cinema? And I don't mean drugged hippies, but your average family, being subsumed in this halo of light. They must have felt as if they're making the next step in evolution right now themselves, catapulted into the stars.
The first moon landing took place one year later.
june gloom on 12/4/2009 at 18:57
Quote Posted by Jackablade
You really have a problem with holding personal grudges, dethtoll.
If you would like to explain what the fuck that has to do with anything, go ahead.
Kolya on 12/4/2009 at 19:27
No one cares. Just go watch 2001 again on a lazy afternoon. It's like a good book: The second viewing is almost better than the first, when you know the story and can soak in the atmosphere, the timing and the details.
242 on 12/4/2009 at 20:00
Quote Posted by dethtoll
the problem is that it's
not that obvious until after you've stepped away from the movie, examined it, and perhaps looked it up on the internet.
It's a problem for you? Then you just can't appreciate many great deep films. It baffles me when people don't like something just because they don't understand it immediately.
RavynousHunter on 12/4/2009 at 20:10
I could explain it (re: Koyannasqatsi [sp?]), but I'll refrain unless you want me to actually do it.
