100
Gary Lockwood - 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/ClassicFilms@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

Unpopular opinion: 2001 A Space Odyssey is a pretty movie but not a good movie. The sets and costumes were great, just look at that still, but the rest was meh. Maybe it required having read the book first, which I didn't, but it was not a good movie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    So... it's not a typical movie. Kubrick was going for a certain effect:

    ...Kubrick made the film more cryptic by minimising dialogue and explanation.[41] Kubrick said the film is "basically a visual, nonverbal experience" that "hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting".

    So one way of reacting to this is to be disappointed. Sure, maybe you don't want that kind of experience, that's fine. Another way of reacting is to be impressed by how Kubrick took the medium of film to another level.

    I should say I've seen this twice and I really feel no urge to see it again, tho I recognize it's an outstanding movie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    nah, man, it's a vibe and its name is HARD AS FUCK SCI FI.

    the books are completely different beasts - the movie was built upon a couple of short stories and then the first novel was written concurrently with the film itself and then Clark really went crazy with it in the sequels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    nah, man, it's a vibe and its name is HARD AS FUCK SCI FI.

    I disagree that enough of the movie is hard sci-fi to qualify as such since the whole movie hinges on the obelisks and they smell a lot like Ancient Aliens bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    I'm talking about HARD AS FUCK SCI FI not hard sci fi. It's a distinct subgenre that i just made up.))

    If we're getting scholastic about it then the whole 2001 series is something like Supple Sci Fi or Pliant Sci Fi or Springy Sci Fi or Firm Sci Fi playing more fast and loose with the technical side of things and leaning into soft sci fi aspects when it feels like it. There's probably a Brian Aldiss or Michael Moorcock essay about it already.

    The Monolith and forces behind it are more or less plot devices up until they deus ex machina their way into the story once Bowman gets even with HAL. It's an age old tradition of sci fi movie third act clusterfuck. Technically, there is a whole bit of alien tech stuff going on in the books and it is not really ancient aliens and closer to reverse Star Trek with humanity getting Prime Directive'd. Funnily enough, parts of alien lore from 2001 and Rama were subtly merged with The Nomad in Star Trek The Motion Picture of all places.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I disagree entirely that it isn't a good movie. For what it's worth I've read a lot of Clarke but never 2001.

    The film is a masterclass in seclusion; the technology used throughout the film progressively isolates the protagonists and the sublime ballet of machinery serves to put the audience into a similar state of mind. It feels like you're also experiencing an expedition— first to the relatively high-traffic lunar station, then to the locked down moon base, then to the sparse Discovery 1 with most of the inhabitants in hibernation (who we never meet), then finally to the solo journey of Dave through the star-gate and his solitary death and rebirth.

    The score is incredible, the themes are timeless, the set design and costumes are impeccable, the cinematography is unparalleled, and the plot is engrossing.

    I can't deny that is isn't for everyone, but that's what makes it an extra special movie for those who do appreciate it. In my opinion it's like saying Hamlet isn't a great story because not much happens until the end when that's almost entirely the point.

    No shade intended, I'm glad that people like different things or the world would be a very boring place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    The score is incredible, the themes are timeless, the set design and costumes are impeccable, the cinematography is unparalleled, and the plot is engrossing.

    even the unused Alex North score goes hard as fuck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    That's like saying Dune sucks! Burn him!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    nah, Dune can suck six days a week and twice on sundays but Dune 2 and Dune 2000 definitely don't suck (Modded up Emperor with fan patch is good too) and we got C&C series out of that which is god tier RTS series - so it's objectively not right to say Dune sucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Does liking the Dune TV miniseries really mean I have to get burned?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Nah, I really don't like Dune. I find the books overwrought, turgid, convoluted, and just plain boring. The Lynch Dune, as Mike Stoklasa says, is a nightmare. But I have it on HD-DVD so I can enjoy a failure on a failed format. This entertains me greatly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)