>Watched 2001
>Lifeless characters
>shit plot
>last 30 mins is nonsense
Why is this flick popular again??
Why is kubrick considered "best of all time" again?
ebin
>>63590504
Amazing special effects.
Fantastic cinematography.
Lifeless acting is thematically relevant.
30 minutes of "bullshit" highly experimental and meticulous.
Core of movie questions the value of life, the Self preservation instinct of conscious beings, the course of human evolution and man's ability to transcend the position as monkeys with tools.
A lot of subtlety as well but fuck it. Let's just call it shit since it doesn't meet your completely arbitrary standards.
>>63590678
>Amazing special effects.
Y'know, people really need to consider how far-and-away 2001 was with it's SFX at the time of its release.
Consider that the other movie up for the SFX award was Ice Station Zebra. Go watch that movie and then watch 2001 and see the HUGE difference.
>>63590504
>Lifeless characters
You're missing the point then. HAL acts more like a human than the crew does. Maybe that means something...
>>63590755
or maybe kubrick was a hack who made bullshit films, tarkovsky is better
>>63590812
nice opinion there newfried
>>63590755
I was fucking mad the whole movie, and found stupid that they wanted to disconnect HAL just because of a fucking stupid mistake that was irrelevant. It even accepted he was wrong and recommended to reinstall the artifact for test if it was really gonna fail.
*cums*
>>63590504
meh.
I turned the fucking movie off at the monkeys scene.
Never gone back
>>63590504
reported
>>63590881
You don't understand how computers are supposed to work. This is like you saying "why would we turn off the computer controlling the nukes if it made a small math error? It's just a tiny mistake."
And the answer is obviously that a mistake like that means that Hal's reasoning ability has been compromised and it can't be trusted to administration if the ship.
>>63590966
Can I make you a question anon?
>>63591019
What kind of movies do you like?
>people raised on Micahel Bay Transformer movies frustrated when they cannot understand Kubrick's film-making
>>63591019
Listen m8. You don't come here telling I don't know about computers, I'm am a computer engineer.
And HAL wasn't a computers, it was an AI created to be more human, and humans make mistakes, when you create a AI that you want to be human there has to be a random chance of mistake programmed to it because humans commit mistakes.
>>63590881
HAL was irrational and that was a sign that he was a person.
But to the humans in the year 2001, that meant HAL was a lesser being and HAL knew it, which only added to the irrationality.
HOly fuck this bloard is infested with plebians
>>63590504
>last 30 mins is nonsense
U JUST DONT GET IT
>>63591141
You are not a computer engineer. I would guess that, at best you are an undergrad comp sci major talking out his ass.
When you task a computer with running a ship and that computer makes any kind of logic based error, you do not continue to leave that computer in a position of power especially if it is in control of human lives. Apart from the fact that this completely hypothetical AI, of which you know nothing, was mentioned to have a perfect operational history of accuracy, NASA is not going to put the lives of astronauts at risk if an AI is making mistakes. There is literally no reason NOT to shut down hal if such a problem occurs.
You can shove you fake internet credentials up you ass.
>>63591068
Modernist existential stuff like Antonioni and Teshigahara. Pretty into Japanese new wave stuff right now as well. Also going back to watch more John Ford stuff.
>>63591141
I dunno what you guys are arguing about, but as I recall, Hal's "mistake" was due to receiving contradictory orders on the way to Jupiter. He wasn't able to reconcile the two directives.
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.
>>63591489
damn, nigga got told
sick taste, too
>>63591571
>2001:A Space Odyssey is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema ever
stopped reading right there, already knew it was bait
spoken like a true cu ck
I think Kubrick was legitimately autistic.
>>63591651
He still has a hotter gf than u
>>63591068
sure thing, ask a question
>watching art films expecting conventional plot and characters
>>63591571
Did you copy this from Pauline Kael or something?
2001 was only meant to be a litmus test
>>63591678
Are you concerned that 2001 is the best space film to date even after more that 50 years after it release? Don't tell me you prefer that Interstellar shit.
>>63591778
This litmus test nonsense is the kind of stuff that it makes no sense how someone could believe. Do you realize how much effort goes into a film? Have you ever tried to shoot edit and sound a film of 10 minutes long let alone 2.5 hours? No one does that for a litmus test.
>30 mins of fucking monkeys running around
>>63591833
>best space film
no
It is literally a bunch of fancy camera shots overlayed with a thin, mediocre plot that completely scrificed whatever semblance of hope it had in the stupid ending.
>turns into fetus
whaaaaaaaat
How does that even happen? What stupid inference do you even get from that?
I'd say Interstellar is the best space film I've seen, and Sunshine gets a very close second.
>>63591571
Almost as bizarre and rambling as Confused Matthew's terrible review
>>63591991
It's pretty simple symbolism, dude
And Interstellar? Really? Nolan is the prime example of style over substance. Kubrick, on the other hand, was the prime of example of show, don't tell, sometimes perhaps to his detriment
>>63590504
>lifeless characters
Just like real life.
>shit plot
For you.
>last 30 mins is nonsense
Because you didn't "get" it.
>>63592083
sure thing its symbolism, but that is to the detriment of the already thin plot which was already going nowhere, and was held together by chance occurences.
Interstellar has style and substance. It has a great story, the sci-fi parts are also well-explained and the movie has an overarching plot - the greatness of man, that he can achieve things on his own. There's no supernatural bs in that film.
>>63592105
>just like real life
then wtf would i watch the movie? retard
I'd rather read a book then
read your own shitty statements first
>>63591837
Very little effort went into this film.
>>63590504
well memed bro.
youre a c͏͏u͏͏c͏͏k t͏͏b͏͏h f͏͏a͏͏m ͏
>>63590504
nice meme btw
>mfw plebs cant watch a movie without explosions
>>63590966
Dude I did the same thing. Kubrick sucks
>>63590728
>You must enjoy the movie more because the special effects were amazing for its time.
get a load of this pleb
>>63590881
Read the book, nigger.
>>63593857
>need to read a book to understand the movie
What a great movie
