>>68681940
It has actually aged pretty well (except maybe the monkey's). Love it

>>68681940

If the movie ended before the final part it would have been possibly the best movie of all time.

8/10

>>68682152

What did the final part mean? Did the monolith suck Dave into a future dimension?

>>68681940
It was, but the fact of that is lost on us now, but it really set the SCI-FI genre ahead.

LANDMARK movie.

>>68682196
The full scope of what happened isn't really shown, but it doesn't matter.

It's just the 5th dimension, like interstellar.

so, visual gobblydegook. It's the coolest looking siht on a movie.

THAT is literally Kinography.

>>68682196

It got really ambiguous after the spaceship, I know there are many interpretations of it but considering the structure of the earlier parts of the film and the coherent nature of it all, I just view it as Kubrick having no idea how to end it. So he choice some visually impressive film instead with a crazy ending.

And I'm aware of the novel and the other film, I just don't think Kubrick handled it very well at all.

>>68682588
>other film

Im scared to ask

>>68682196
The ending sequence is intentionally left open to interpretation. The book provides a more conclusive ending but Arthur Clarke said its just one possible answer.

My view is the aliens are utterly incomprehensible to humans, so direct communication with Bowman is impossible. Instead they show him images to communicate. They show him aging and dying, and by proxy mankind aging and dying. Bowman chooses to take the next step in evolution and is reborn as the starchild.

That's just my take on it anyways.

2001 is really boring

>>68682685

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/

In my opinion it's sort of underrated, it's compared unfairly to 2001, though obviously considering it's a "sequel" it's an understandable comparison.

>>68682320
you have no idea what kino means.