yes one of these threads again. what did you think? i just finished it. thought the themes about the evolution of mankind were great but a lot of scenes were too long.
Only part I'd criticize are the scenes between the Dawn of Man and the return of the monolith on the moon. I get the purpose of them but it really, really drags there. Otherwise its fantastic
HAL'sdeathis one of the most unsettling scenes ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY
>>63555645
agreed. i'm not a fan of the particular song used in that scene.
HALdyingdepressed the shit out of me
the scenes were not too long.
you have the attention span of a goldfish.
you are the reason we get television shows that run for eleven minutes.
2001:A Space Odyssey is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema ever. Its forced profundity has caused millions of people all over the world to force themselves to like what is quite simply nothing more than an exercise in style.
Kubrick has no idea what he is doing here. His film jumps around with little to no sense of unity. The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information, something Kubrick couldn't bet his life on.
What is the purpose of what is going on here? Is there any coherent message? I have heard suggestions that it is Kubrick's message about the future of humanity, but what future is that? Does Kubrick even know?
This is Transformers for the art house crowd. Pure style over substance. Nobody actually likes this film, they just like to be seen liking it.
>>63555888
Fucking this.
>>63555735
congratulations that you can be so enthralled by watching a spaceship slowly rotate while The Blue Danube plays
>>63555491
2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968
That was 47 years ago.
>>63555888
>what is going on here?
Nah, I ain't gonna fall for it. Also what a waste of double trips.
>>63556140
i wasnt alive back then
Generally, there are only two kinds of American filmmakers...
1. Great naturalists who are often idiots, these tend to fall into a kind of radical/republican mode. Like Scorsese, they have kind of a bipolar element to them. They're Dionysian.
2. Great structuralists. These are generally a little more like the liberal/democratic Classicist. Kubrick is the one to mention here. He's a cold, clinical filmmaker who might have been just as good in the field of science or math. A sort of cinematic legalist. His movies exist as a method of demonstrating some great situation while letting people remain totally subjective within that situation. That's maddening for a lot of critics who like watching characters be emotive, and at the same time, rational and objective. Kubrick's characters are not objective. The film chisels its themes out of stone, but the key here is that it doesn't intend to 'solve the problem' it raises. It's just there to look out, while YOU view it objectively, like a sculpture of Apollo.
The closest that American filmmaking ever got to closing these two gaps was arguably in Welles. Citizen Kane is a truly 'Faustian' movie.
This is the best image to encapsulate Kubrick with.
His work is complete, and unbecoming. It exists so that you can view the winding, subjective ways of its characters in a totally objective way.
You're not supposed to feel pulled into Jack Torrance the same way you'd be pulled into a character in a Malick film. Jack is totally subjective and repelling as an archetype, while Malick's characters are totally relatable to anyone, in spite of their regionalisms.
>>63555888
Why can't you fedora wannabes just say what you really think about films. instead of doing a cut-and-paste from a Pauline kael review?
-SHEESH!
