 "I Love the Monolith" | 2009-09-27 |
| - Reviewed By theboombody |
I think this is a movie everybody should see at least once. Not since the movie Toys have I seen such wonderful use of color and set design in a movie.
It's much more like an art film than Toys though. We see long and very quiet scenes, screen shots of random colors flying by, close-ups of eyes, a character walking around a strange room in solitude, and Toys doesn't have any of that.
But 2001 isn't completely an art film either, because the scenes are loosely connected together to form some form of plot and the budget to produce the film was obviously quite high. So 2001 is more or less a hybrid between traditinal cinema and independent art films. And you know something? I think it works. For the first viewing at least.
If you want to watch it again, I recommend using the scene selection screen to skip the longer build up parts and go straight to the good stuff, like the especially creepy monolith scenes. They seemed very religious to me. |
| |
| "The original "wow!" movie" | 2009-09-26 |
| - Reviewed By lcharters |
| It is amazing to think that this was released before we even landed on the moon. In Blu-Ray, "2001" looks and sounds better than it did in the theater long, long ago. Yes, there are some parts that are dated, such as the Pan Am logo on the shuttle. Yet, more than any other film, "2001" took science fiction out of the film ghetto and put it into the mainstream. |
| |
 "A Good Movie but I can see why some people don't like it" | 2009-09-25 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2CUPSHGHU290Q |
This movie deserves a little more credit from people who give it an F because after all it is pretty thought provoking. However, those who give it an A are giving it way to much credit. I think the people who really really like this movie are the type who believe anything is art. You know the type I mean. Those who look at a canvas that a monkey painted and think it's very deep and complex, or those that love something old and different just because it's considered classic.
The movie does have some interesting notes, but there are so many horrible elements. Everything is overkill. Scenes drag out way to long, and dramatic music is over used to the point it's annoying and no longer dramatic. The people mentioned above will find this fascinating simply because it's different. It is different but that fact alone does not make it good.
Credit does have to be given to the special effects. Great for the day, which is why I rated the visuals so high.
So people on both sides should give credit where credit is due. This movie is decent at best. Everybody is a critic so watch it and judge for yourself. |
| |
| "SF & Kubrick Fan" | 2009-09-13 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1XRLYRZFPNUM6 |
| One of the greatest movies, SF or otherwise, ever made, so any fidelity improvements equal improvements period, still breathtaking after 4 decades. |
| |
| "NOT boring, if you can pay attention: Appreciating 2001 - A Space Odyssey" | 2009-07-12 |
| - Reviewed By jstabile4 |
Please permit me to ramble for a moment. Or skip to my 2001 review/analysis recommendations. I feel like being a dork. And I know I ain't tellin' ya anything you probably don't already know.
2001 is boring? Most boring movie ever? See the review below or a recent skit from the usually hilarious "Robot Chicken" show late at night on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim lineup.
To some viewers -of all ages- it is boring. Typically people that already don't like science fiction, movies without a lot of "action", and/or that have an aversion to ambiguity and being in any way challenged by a movie.
But obviously more people born in the 1980s and after do have a problem appreciating this classic because they have grown-up in a media environment in which mind blowing special effects are taken for granted. An era (it needs repeating) that came about due in part to the groundbreaking work done in making 2001. Before 2001 movies did not have good "special" effects (arguably a couple or so minor exceptions). Kids today have been raised on a steady diet of video games and Hollywood films in which speed and action are taken as necessities and continually evolving and supposedly improving graphics and eye dazzling imagery are completely expected. Supposedly better because for the most part the look of 2001's ships, space stations and costumes, while perhaps in some regards is aesthetically dated, do look better, more real, more realistic and more probable. Just compare 2001 to the cgi showcase that was the Star Wars prequel world of George Lucas. It isn't surprising that when you hear Lucas talk it is usually about the cost effectiveness of his digital Baroque Nerdism. (That term was coined in a hysterical review from the Village Voice titled "May the Force Be Over". I recommend it.) The media world younger generations are coming out of has left them with very short attention spans (even more than my generation!) and overstimulated senses to the point that the mind is dulled.
Nothing will change this. But maybe some historical context and some interesting analysis would help. You have to care in the first place, BUT to those that maybe care to appreciate this movie instead of bash it, I got a couple of supplemental reading and video presentation suggestions.
**********
Much has been written about genius Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking masterpiece. I want use this space on Amazon to share some recent discoveries of mine. If I were a fan or if had never heard anything about this movie I would appreciate checking out this stuff. So this is in the spirit of making this "review" useful or helpful to Amazon customers, but I have nothing original or interesting to say myself. People much smarter or more interesting than me -and who have dedicated more time than I ever could- have analyzed this movie as much as movie can be analyzed. And some have probably gone a little too far....but that's for YOU to decide. You'll probably at least enjoy the ride. It gets pretty "out there". More than you'd ever believe.
--Read Rob Ager's analysis: "'Kubrick: and beyond the cinema frame' An in-depth analysis of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY". And then watch the incredible video version of the review on his site, "Collative Learning", or You Tube.
--Then check out "2001: A False Flag Odyssey" by Joe Bisdon. There's a link to it on Ager's site.
--And of course worth going to is "The Kubrick Site". Lots of articles of Kubrick films.
--You know what? Wikipedia is great. Lol. It's often criticized as reliable source of information but it's usually worth checking out. In any case, the entry on 2001 is loaded with interesting tidbits of into on the making of the film and the fascinating development of what story to tell and how to tell it, as well it's reception and unique cultural impact. Plus you'll find "External links".
Like stated above, there is just a ton off great stuff out there, but Ager's work kept me busy for a awhile and added even more to my experience of a film that I have loved so much over the years.
Hope you enjoy it as much as me!!
In the end I value this film not because of some secret meaning perhaps embedded within it, or as an interesting puzzle to be solved, or because of it's important place in cinematic and cultural history but rather because it triumphantly does for me what it's creator exactly intended. And I can't think of the medium of film going beyond the achievement of this type of experience for the viewer.
"They are the areas I prefer not to discuss, because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded". -Stanley Kubrick
|
| |
| "Epic" | 2009-07-05 |
| - Reviewed By andarielhalo |
There is no other word for it. Any amount of hyperbole would simply be insulting. Hyperbole is what things like this are made for.
The film is a feat of visual effects that even in this day is frightening and spellbinding in how REAL it looks. Even the best CGI today can make something appear real, but it will ALWAYS just be on the very finest edge of artificiality. Virtually no part of this film ever slid through that edge. Every part appeared insanely real.
The prelude, "Dawn of Man" is itself a little film that brought me to tears with how amazingly, artfully done it is.
The sequence in which Heywood Floyd and the rest gaze upon the Monolith on the moon was one that kept me frozen stiff in fear and wonder like no other work of art has ever done.
Every single word spoken by HAL9000, coated in the thickest layers of smooth, deadpan articulation, is a horror of might and machine, and HAL's end is more heartwrenching and gutwrenching than most other movie death's for human characters.
The entire "postlude", Jupiter and infinity, was an all-out display of technology and wordless storytelling that seems at first to step into the realm of the "pretentious artsy indy film made by an arrogant art student", and then destroys any inclinations towards that notion, and becomes the very avatar that those pretentious art students aim to recreate with their seeming randomness of images and ideas.
I was in tears for so many portions of the film. Not from joy, not from sorrow, but from the sheer emotional power the film had that I have never seen from any film, book, play, television show, or game ever. Epic. |
| |
Expedited Available
