Overrated classic simply for being a kubrick film.

>>68812215
Overrated pretentious shit.

Only Kubrick fanboy's will say dumb shit like 2deep4u

sci-fi films really in thier infancy (not space opera) a little experimentation was a big thing plus reggy perrin

it was the 60s and nobody had done optical and special effects like that that really looked like it could sort of be real. that's really where the hype comes from. it's a perfectly fine movie too.

>>68812260
>>68812311
Yes. Pretentious, but not bad.

Good tier testing the waters of sci fi.

>>68812317
>>68812363
You guys are right, I also felt like it was kinda tech demo-y. It also seemed to lack the coherent surface narrative that Kubrick crutches his attention to detail on, I thought it would make me more easily understand what the message behind the movie was, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.

I guess that's what i wanted to discuss, explain to me what he was communicating here, even if it wasn't intentional, although it's hard to imagine anything wasn't intentional with him.

>>68812650
if i remember correctly it really was a confluence of technical factors that brought 2001 into its full stature. like they got some special carl zeiss shit or something from NASA and also had like the best matte painter in the world on hand.

>>68812650

It was not a failed tech demo. It worked, at least technically if that is what you are talking about.

>>68812215
NOPE

Good thinking piece
Shit film