I have to be honest and say that I am really disappointed in this film. The sound effects are almost unbearable.. I enjoyed the classical music but everything else was terrible. I found myself getting aggravated as the movie went on... Also, the random/abstract pieces of film are extremely annoying... Why so much effort into making the movie seem disjointed and "complex"? Overall, this movie looked like it was trying way too hard to be something profound/interesting and in the end it just ended up being, well... underwhelming. I expected a lot more interesting dialogue, instead of these drawn out and never ending boring scenes, overlay with sound effects that sound as if they were taken right from the first ever Gameboy. I will never watch this movie again, nor will I recommend it to anyone. I really think it's highly overrated. Can someone people explain this movie to me so that maybe I can forgive myself for watching it?

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

Bartek -10 points.

>Can someone
>people explain this movie to me so that maybe I can forgive
>myself for watching it?

you don't like it, cool, KIM

I agree with you 100%.

2001 was absolutely spectacular. It is one of the few movies that made you feel what the characters were feeling in a very physical way (the noise when the astronauts touched the obelisk, the light show at the end, turning off HAL is such an intimate way)

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

The Kill
Sparta
Lol
Dr. Strange
Barry L
The Shin
Full Metal

and lastly

Eyes Wide Sh
________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

and I liked Sunshine.

but you're fucking crazy.

>but you're fucking crazy.

I'll also take that over being bored to death

(which it's not, but I won't argue personal taste)

you can't possibly think Sunshine is actually a better movie.

>(which it's not, but I won't argue personal taste)
>
>you can't possibly think Sunshine is actually a better movie.

>(which it's not, but I won't argue personal taste)
>
>you can't possibly think Sunshine is actually a better movie.

If I ever stay awake long enough to watch 2001 in its entirity I'll let you know. Til then, I'll allow you to believe that's true. From what I've seen, its not even close to touching Sunshine in terms of acting & cinematography. The story wasn't doin much for me either so what else is there that's gonna convice me its the better movie?

the cinematography & FX in 2001 are fantastic, Sunshine has the advantage of CGI but overall I wouldn't say the FX are any more effective or that the cinematography is better.

the acting in 2001 is understated but very solid and most importantly realistic and believable, there aren't any melodramatics thrown in just for the hell of it. Keir Dullea gives an excellent performance as Dave Bowman actually - he's not playing a stock hollywood hero, he plays it like an actual fucking astronaut. you ever seen footage of Neil Armstrong? reserved, laconic, cool under fire - that's how Dullea plays Bowman. hell he even looks just like Armstrong. meanwhile Sunshine has Johnny Storm as the ship's pilot & the wigger from Barbershop as second in command.

and on top of that HAL is absolutely chilling as the villian in 2001 while Pinbacker is like a throwaway from a bad monster/slasher movie. hell, HAL is 3000X the character of anyone in Sunshine + Douglas Rain's voice acting alone tops any acting performance in Sunshine.

the story in Sunshine is cool but not in the same league as 2001 in terms of scope, and the execution is nowhere near as good. not to mention that Sunshine falls off the rails at the end.

I mean I'm not telling you that you have to like it or anything. And I can understand where you're coming from - I thought Seven Samurai was boring & I enjoyed The Last Samurai and thought it was entertaining, but that doesn't mean I think it's a better movie than Seven Samurai.

>the cinematography & FX in 2001 are fantastic, Sunshine has
>the advantage of CGI but overall I wouldn't say the FX are
>any more effective or that the cinematography is better.
>
>the acting in 2001 is understated but very solid and most
>importantly realistic and believable, there aren't any
>melodramatics thrown in just for the hell of it. Keir Dullea
>gives an excellent performance as Dave Bowman actually - he's
>not playing a stock hollywood hero, he plays it like an actual
>fucking astronaut. you ever seen footage of Neil Armstrong?
>reserved, laconic, cool under fire - that's how Dullea plays
>Bowman. hell he even looks just like Armstrong. meanwhile
>Sunshine has Johnny Storm as the ship's pilot & the wigger
>from Barbershop as second in command.

So because they played those characters in other movies, means they weren't good in this one? Cmon.

>and on top of that HAL is absolutely chilling as the villian
>in 2001 while Pinbacker is like a throwaway from a bad
>monster/slasher movie. hell, HAL is 3000X the character of
>anyone in Sunshine + Douglas Rain's voice acting alone tops
>any acting performance in Sunshine.

I guess not only did I not see enough, I must not've heard enough either. Douglas Rain's voice acting was on par with the voice of Chipo Chung as Icarus. I wasn't overly impressed by either one. Meanwhile Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne & yes even Chris Evans gave great performances.

>the story in Sunshine is cool but not in the same league as
>2001 in terms of scope, and the execution is nowhere near as
>good. not to mention that Sunshine falls off the rails at the
>end.
>
>I mean I'm not telling you that you have to like it or
>anything. And I can understand where you're coming from - I
>thought Seven Samurai was boring & I enjoyed The Last Samurai
>and thought it was entertaining, but that doesn't mean I think
>it's a better movie than Seven Samurai.

LOL. I didn't make it all the way through the 7 sams either. But there's quite a few movies like that where they're supposedly great films but if they're not keeping my interest I guess I'm just not seeing it. You can add Citizen Kane & Touch of Evil (which I did finish) to that list as well.

>>Sunshine has Johnny Storm as the ship's pilot & the wigger
>>from Barbershop as second in command.
>
>So because they played those characters in other movies, means
>they weren't good in this one? Cmon.

no, because they suck as actors means they weren't good in this one.


>I guess not only did I not see enough, I must not've heard
>enough either. Douglas Rain's voice acting was on par with the
>voice of Chipo Chung as Icarus. I wasn't overly impressed by
>either one.

if you weren't impressed with Rain's voice acting for HAL then I honestly don't know what to tell you.


>Meanwhile Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne & yes even
>Chris Evans gave great performances.

Chris Evans gave a "great" performance? cmon.


>LOL. I didn't make it all the way through the 7 sams either.
>But there's quite a few movies like that where they're
>supposedly great films but if they're not keeping my interest
>I guess I'm just not seeing it. You can add Citizen Kane &
>Touch of Evil (which I did finish) to that list as well.

yeah I feel the same about Citizen Kane. so I can kinda understand where you're coming from.

but 2001 still better.

foh.

------------------------------------------
lou know.

That movie didn't switch gears, it switched genres. That film is ridiculous in how it suddenly and awkwardly becomes a slasher film midway (or 3/4's of the way) through.

I was digging it and suddenly was just staring at the screen like "What just happened? Did somebody turn the channel or something?" It's almost like they showed up on set with the second half of a different script and were like "Fuck it, let's see if it works"

>That movie didn't switch gears, it switched genres. That film
>is ridiculous in how it suddenly and awkwardly becomes a
>slasher film midway (or 3/4's of the way) through.
>
>I was digging it and suddenly was just staring at the screen
>like "What just happened? Did somebody turn the channel or
>something?" It's almost like they showed up on set with the
>second half of a different script and were like "Fuck it,
>let's see if it works"

Hahahaha


------------------------------
Avatar: Official Dumhipod Winner

Check out summa dis artwork AND NEW PICS:
http://www.myspace.com/sirapexthegreatest

Check out the other Dumhipod pics here: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPic

Shit started out like 2001 and ended up like Event Horizon (complete with the same "bleak" climax!*)



*I know, "but but but there was a happy ending, his sister saw the sun!"... whoop-de-doo!
________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

------------------------------------------
lou know.

...drop enough acid before viewing this movie.

box

>...drop enough acid before viewing this movie.
>
>box

At certain points I felt embarrassed to be sitting in the theater and I wanted them to stop!

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

You either vibe with the movie or you don't.

I think it's the best sci fi film ever, alot of people hate it and that's fine too.

nm

the I watched it again.


The scenes when HAL snapped off and Dave had to disconnect him are some of the most intense moments I've ever seen in any science fiction flick, EVER.


That's a great fuckin' film, son.




Watch it again. If you don't like it after a second viewing, then you're entitled to say you've honestly tried.

I just knew he was going to be a menace... Everything with Hal was interesting.. I guess I'm just mad at how they closed this one out... oh it could have been fantastic in my opinion....

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

but i won't deny it's greatness

Plodding, dull and pointless.

I like every other Kubrick film except this.

************************
You must not know bout me, you must not know bout me, to the left, to the left (C) "Killa" Camron

>I like every other Kubrick film except this.

your opinion is useless.

That said, I generally refuse to argue the point, because I know the current tide among the mob is against me. I'll give it another 20 years to grow on people.

I don't think it's horrible or anything, but it's not a great movie.

but I was more taking exception to the guy saying 2001 sucks.

I got it on bluray, the 1st one i bought.

this movie is a classic. it was panned by critics when it was released.

it was the spark, the catalyst to a majority the scifi stories out there, specifically those that concern the human experience beyond earth and space travel. It was made in the sixties and holds up imho.

to each his or her own.

________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

lolz, fucker
________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

I'm okay with Spike, just not a dicksucker or pass giver to someone clearly stunting to get press.


The movie sucks.

________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

yea sure maybe his films have really good shots or some technical nonsense like that..but I don't direct films..don't get it.

You want us to do your thinking for you? Seriously?

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

admit it.

There are some fantastic scenes in 2001 as well.. but overall I was disappointed.. I really wanted more out of the ending... I was gearing myself up for so much and then... I just got angry! As a result, this post was produced...

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

I mean, I'm just as surprised when people got angry at how No Country For Old Men ended...it ended that way for a reason. You wanted it to fit the narrative of a blockbuster movie? Well, you should watch blockbuster movies then, but this is an art flick so sometimes you have to ask yourself why the film presented things in a certain way.

With a movie so well regarded it's arrogant to assume that the movie was bad rather than first imagine there's a chance you just didn't get it. I could share my interpretations with you, sure, but the point is for you to mull it over by yourself, then ideally discuss it with somebody else who likes thinking about movies. If you're not even willing to give the movie the benefit of the doubt what do you expect us to do for you?

>With a movie so well regarded it's arrogant to assume that the
>movie was bad rather than first imagine there's a chance you
>just didn't get it. I could share my interpretations with
>you, sure, but the point is for you to mull it over by
>yourself, then ideally discuss it with somebody else who likes
>thinking about movies. If you're not even willing to give the
>movie the benefit of the doubt what do you expect us to do for
>you?

>With a movie so well regarded it's arrogant to assume that the
>movie was bad rather than first imagine there's a chance you
>just didn't get it.

my mother LOVED that film and had me watch it by the time i was 16

I read about it on the internet as well and a lot of people said you needed to read the book... I thought that was stupid since no movie that draws from the book should require a prerequisite of reading it... Also, as far as No Country For Old Men is concerned.. I got the ending right away and understood it... It was brilliantly executed and I had no problems interpreting the end... Are you done being pompous?

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

You've avoided a very penetrating question. Given the fact that a substantial majority of people who care about films --- including probably all of the directors who created your favorite films --- agrees that 2001 is the best and most important science fiction picture ever made, how are you pretending that there is something seriously objectively wrong with it? Why isn't it more likely that you, alone, simply don't understand it yet?

We can't tell you "you have to love it because everyone else loves it," but we can certainly tell you that you're a fool for not taking it seriously at all.

Like I said... I don't have to adhere to anything you or anyone else believes.. my belief is my very own.. and he was being pompous by assuming that I did not get No Country for Old Men... there is a huge difference between 2001 and No Country... you know what it is?

ONE DOESN'T REQUIRE FOR YOU TO READ A BOOK BEFORE YOU WATCH IT TO UNDERSTAND IT.

Also, just because something is considered classic, doesn't mean I have to automatically accept it. The sound effects are terrible! The high pitched beeping, terrible.. the piercing sounds, terrible... the weak scenes of him entering an alien world... as if that wasn't an ocean with color filters on the footage.. WEAK... try harder... finally, bring a bit more context to the ending if you are going to make a book into a movie with just basic and minimal requirements... I'm sorry, but it's not perfect, or nearly as good as you let others convince you it is. So please, grow your own personality, your own sense of self, and stop following everything.

Be your own.

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

but you don't.

The movie and the book are different pieces of art. I've never read the book, nor do I plan to.

I haven't read the original stories (on which the screenplay was based), or the novel (which was based on the screenplay). They're not all that relevant, and I'm not particularly interested in Clarke's work (though I'd readily admit that I could be naive on that).


>Also, just because something is considered classic, doesn't
>mean I have to automatically accept it.

It doesn't mean you have to personally enjoy it. But there's more to a film than your personal enjoyment. For you to so completely dismiss its historical importance, and the quality of its construction, is *factually* incorrect and breathtakingly naive.

>The sound effects are
>terrible!

smh

>The high pitched beeping, terrible.. the piercing
>sounds, terrible...

They are SUPPOSED to be piercing! They are supposed to be painful to the ear. Have you spent a split second considering why those sounds are so piercing?

>the weak scenes of him entering an alien
>world... as if that wasn't an ocean with color filters on the
>footage.. WEAK... try harder...

What are you, a fucking troll? This is ridiculous. What was it, and what was it supposed to look like?

As for "try harder," it was 1968 for God's sake. Anyone who's worked in visual effects will say that the creation of 2001, particularly the "star gate sequence" that you seem to find so lazy, was a seminal moment in visual effects, the beginning of the modern age.


>finally, bring a bit more
>context to the ending

The ending is the best thing about the movie. It admits the ridiculousness of the standard science fiction themes and elements that you seem to find so necessary. Here's an anecdote from the Wikipedia page:

"Astronomer Carl Sagan wrote in his book The Cosmic Connection that Clarke and Kubrick asked his opinion on how to best depict extraterrestrial intelligence. Sagan, wryly acknowledging Kubrick's desire to use actors to portray humanoid aliens for convenience's sake, argued that alien life forms were unlikely to bear any resemblance to terrestrial life, and that to do so would introduce "at least an element of falseness" to the film. Sagan proposed that the film suggest, rather than depict, extraterrestrial superintelligence. Sagan attended the premiere and was "pleased to see that I had been of some help." Sagan related that many Soviet scientists regarded the film to be the best American movie they had seen."

>if you are going to make a book into a
>movie

A book was not made into a movie. Clarke and Kubrick wrote the screenplay together, adapted, very loosely, from several mutually unrelated stories. Clarke released a novel, later, to make a little more money, but it was essentially just a spinoff.

>with just basic and minimal requirements... I'm sorry,
>but it's not perfect, or nearly as good as you let others
>convince you it is. So please, grow your own personality, your
>own sense of self, and stop following everything.

How about you stop pretending that ridiculous naivite is a virtue, or a sign of individuality. You can be an individual without being an idiot.

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

And was probably deemed so before u were even born. It is the height of arrogance and stupidity to at this late date think you are bringing anything new to the table with your immature mind.

U are so stupid u don't have the sense to recoginze the stupidity of what u wrote.

and not blindly following it like you... A movie should stand on its own, without having to read the book first... There are classic accomplishments in the movie, but overall, i think its overrated.. .im sorry i don't suit your totalitarian world..

@}-,-`-

Love is Dead

>And was probably deemed so before u were even born. It is the
>height of arrogance and stupidity to at this late date think
>you are bringing anything new to the table with your immature
>mind.
>
>U are so stupid u don't have the sense to recoginze the
>stupidity of what u wrote.

So if someone dislikes a movie that's deemed a classic it can't just be that the film didn't work for them? Sure there's a lot of people who deem films (books, albums, etc) classic but that doesn't mean that it's universal. It's not up to someone to make themselves like something.

With this kind of logic once anything gets past a certain time why make any comment on it as a whole? Just accept it and keep it moving right?

Seems weird.

"oh but it's been so highly regarded by critics for decades! something's wrong with YOU!"

sheep mentality.

the plot was intriguing at first but didn't develop like a classic film and then had a completely ridiculous ending (with weaker visuals)

>the plot was intriguing at first but didn't develop like a
>classic film and then had a completely ridiculous ending (with
>weaker visuals)

i love everything about the movie.. except.. the sound effects.. and the ending... that's it... btw, you guys like my avy? haha...

i will say this.. i'd love to discuss the ending because it really kind of left me stumped...


@}-,-`-

From your own experiences and ideas, what did you think was the overall theme of the movie?

What do you think Kubrick was trying to describe in the third act, and how does it relate to the first two?

these are my thoughts on the movie... the movie began with the theme of evolution.. the apes, and how they first learned to use tools, and how these tools were used in battle... i think this is indicative of the fact that humanity has always used their best technology for war, and so on and so forth... perhaps, HAL represents that bone the apes first used to kill each other, as he was a tool.. a piece of technology.. who learned from human beings to have malicious intent... perhaps the alien's watching planet earth knew the nature of man.. and thus, in the end.. the alien's did not want to establish a personal relationship with human beings, but simply wanted to watch and observe...

@}-,-`-

@}-,-`-

I haven't watched it in the last few years, I'm going to watch it this weekend so I can have a proper response, I'm taking this seriously.

>these are my thoughts on the movie... the movie began with
>the theme of evolution.. the apes, and how they first learned
>to use tools, and how these tools were used in battle...

Absolutely, I agree with you there. The three acts each reflect great leaps in human development...critical thought, creation of artificial intelligence, discovery of extraterrestrial life, the viewing of a fourth temporal dimension.

>i
>think this is indicative of the fact that humanity has always
>used their best technology for war, and so on and so forth...
>perhaps, HAL represents that bone the apes first used to kill
>each other, as he was a tool.. a piece of technology.. who
>learned from human beings to have malicious intent...

I did actually notice that for the first time this viewing, that the use of tools was cut in with the idea of violence, which takes us in an interesting direction.

>perhaps
>the alien's watching planet earth knew the nature of man.. and
>thus, in the end.. the alien's did not want to establish a
>personal relationship with human beings, but simply wanted to watch and observe

Maybe, but I think you're taking the connection a little far for my tastes, I don't think the two ideas were that explicitly connected. No motives were really suggested for why an alien race didn't seem to offer any direct communication with Dave...though I think their indirect communication speaks volumes.

My interpretation of the final scene, and therefore the movie, is based on the different concepts of dimensions. In the third act, on Dave's journey we see shapes that we associate as three-dimensional space (such as galaxies) represented on rippled two-dimensional planes.

I remember a filmmaker friend of mine talking about a golden ratio of 1:4:9, the squares of the first three integers (1, 2 and 3) and how this 'perfect' ratio was why the black rectangular cube markers were shaped in the way they were. I looked this up on wikipedia because I couldn't remember the exact ratio, and this is what it says:

"These dimensions are the main source of debate regarding the monoliths' simple external design. It is suggested that this number series does not stop at three dimensions, presumably also extending into the fourth and fifth dimensions. What is meant by this is not clear."

So, with that in mind I think what Dave was given by the alien race was an ability to view a fourth temporal (as opposed to spatial) dimension. You notice that he has the ability to see himself at different ages, which is essentially what you'd expect to be able to see if all you could see in a dimension of time is yourself. (Well, not exactly like that, you'd more be like a long undulating worm with your newborn self at one end and your near-corpse at the other, but I think we can agree that that's simply unfilmable and also probably dramatically and aesthetically unnecessary even if it was.)

So? So what, right?

I think there's a narrative here that human development is essentially a mixed blessing, with technology and advancement comes graver reality that we must accept, which is interesting commentary considering this was made during the cold war during the middle of the space race. With tools came violence, with artificial intelligence came inhuman decisions, with envisioning a higher dimension came misery.

i still maintain that the ending fell short... yes, with your explanation it is truly genius and intriguing.. however.. one would need some education before even attempting to interpret what you did.. and some research.. so, on its own.. this piece of art fails to communicate what it attempts to.. if after all, your interpretation was the goal...

@}-,-`-

>i still maintain that the ending fell short... yes, with your
>explanation it is truly genius and intriguing.. however.. one
>would need some education before even attempting to interpret
>what you did.. and some research.. so, on its own.. this piece
>of art fails to communicate what it attempts to.. if after
>all, your interpretation was the goal...

I have no idea if my interpretation is the one Kubrick had in mind, and it doesn't matter. It's not his movie anymore, it's ours. I don't think Kubrick is so uninteresting that his intention was to make a movie that could only be interpreted one way. I think your interpretation is as valid as mine. I'm sure there's other great interpretations out there that make much more sense than mine (which was full of loopholes that could be debated). The best interpretation is the one that withstands the most scrutiny I think.

Do you need an education to interpret a movie? I think it gives you more interpretive tools, sure. Do you need to do research? Absolutely not.

But I do think, and I think this is where we do agree, that the greatest artist is one who can provide entertainment AND stimuli for higher consideration. Many people who didn't 'get' 2001 were still entertained by Hal's chilling demeanor, exquisite visuals and rousing score, but it's fair that you weren't entertained by the shrill sound effects and the perplexing and unforgiving ending.

Starship Troopers was a great achievement because it hit on both levels...it was two movies, one that discussed the eeriness of fascist surface-level mentalities and one that awesomely killed a shitload of bugs. I always find it even better when a movie has layers of understanding for different viewers.

Anyhow, I'm glad you liked my interpretation. Peace.

gonna watch the sequel tonight.

V.

Folks love it because they was HIGH when they saw it.



**************************************

"I'm sick of followin' my dreams. I'm just gonna ask where they goin', and hook with them later." - Mitch Hedberg

"I don't think muthafuckas went to the moon either, but that's just me..." - Mos

>Folks love it because they was HIGH when they saw it.