2001 A Space Oddesy

[HeDGi]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU4TQ1NTo50"]YouTube- Official 2001: A Space Odyssey Trailer[/ame]
NOt really for you kids who dont have the patience to sit and watch a very monumental film
This movie blew my mind in so many ways... all the different meanings behind it and all the different theories and questions that it raises, straight off the bat it had me thinking to myself... How does this director know what space will "Look Like" if we ourselves haven't had any footage/photos of space at all. Then a friend that i was watching it with mentioned to me that the director Stanley Kubrick, is famous for being the man who "Filmed the fake landing". For those of you who havnt seen it , i highly suggest it. I would deeeeeply recommend it for those of you who are very psychological and have a good time interpreting things based off of visual expression and small detail. This movie was shot to perfection with almost every scene breaking the rules of gravity, also keep in mind that it was shot in the 60's before we even had CG,And all the other special effects. The movie is extrememly open ended, the director wanted the film to be a type of movie that makes you want to think of what reallllyyy happened.

MY Suggestion/opinion

 

The whole movie is a spin of how technology overcomes humanity in the end and drives us all to pure ignorance and insanity, in the beginning of the film the monkey is granted the large bone as a weapon, the monkey uses it to kill the other monkeys in order to obtain there water, Same goes for "HAL" - Hal is already forseeing the future since he is a part of the "Scientific Advancement" i Also think that HAL was smart enough to understand that the hands of society rested on "Daves" shoulders and that he needed to see what the future had in store, it will be a sad day when the earth finally fulfills the dark future that this movie has presented..and to think that it came out in the 60's... such a good movie..

[EmpireWF]

I saw this maybe 2-years ago in a film class and hated it. Not my cup of tea. From what I remember, I felt the story was going nowhere and was bored by it.

[Nukleopatra]

It wasn't as good as ''The Wraith,'' but not many movies are.

[Buzzman]

its on my to watch list.

[padman59]

NOt really for you kids who dont have the patience to sit and watch a very monumental film
This movie blew my mind in so many ways... all the different meanings behind it and all the different theories and questions that it raises, straight off the bat it had me thinking to myself... How does this director know what space will "Look Like" if we ourselves haven't had any footage/photos of space at all. Then a friend that i was watching it with mentioned to me that the director Stanley Kubrick, is famous for being the man who "Filmed the fake landing". For those of you who havnt seen it , i highly suggest it. I would deeeeeply recommend it for those of you who are very psychological and have a good time interpreting things based off of visual expression and small detail. This movie was shot to perfection with almost every scene breaking the rules of gravity, also keep in mind that it was shot in the 60's before we even had CG,And all the other special effects. The movie is extrememly open ended, the director wanted the film to be a type of movie that makes you want to think of what reallllyyy happened.

Space programs were in existence for more than a decade at that point, and people had been to space for almost a decade as well. I imagine there was a good amount of source material for Kubrick to use.

Great visuals in this movie though, which is probably necessary due to the general lack of dialog throughout. I loved selection of classical music used as the soundtrack as well.

However, I can see why people dislike it. It can be an exhausting/boring flick if you're looking for a well defined plot/narrative. 2001 leaves a lot to the viewers imagination and interpretation.

[Senser81]

It wasn't as good as ''The Wraith,'' but not many movies are.

"Jake....JAIMIE!!!!"

[Senser81]

MY Suggestion/opinion

 

The whole movie is a spin of how technology overcomes humanity in the end and drives us all to pure ignorance and insanity, in the beginning of the film the monkey is granted the large bone as a weapon, the monkey uses it to kill the other monkeys in order to obtain there water, Same goes for "HAL" - Hal is already forseeing the future since he is a part of the "Scientific Advancement" i Also think that HAL was smart enough to understand that the hands of society rested on "Daves" shoulders and that he needed to see what the future had in store, it will be a sad day when the earth finally fulfills the dark future that this movie has presented..and to think that it came out in the 60's... such a good movie..

I enjoyed 2001 because it was unlike most movies. There was no character development...and really, there weren't any characters. HAL probably had the most dialogue.

I agree with the your interpretation in a general sense. But...

 

I think your view on the evil of technology is too strong. I think the point is how humanity has allowed technology to take over their lives. I don't view the apes understanding the use of tools as a bad thing...if the monolith never appeared, then perhaps humans never would have existed in the first place...we would still be apes. I think HAL represents the laziness/malaise of humanity, which Dave has to overcome by using his own brain to outsmart HAL and regain control of the mission. Once Dave triumphs over HAL, an epiphany occurs and we are shown sort of a 'second enlightenment'. Mankind is reborn at the end of the movie. I see the monoliths as being an agent of change for the good...do you see them as being agents of change for evil?

[dell71]

Don't know how many of you I'm going to disappoint/upset with this revelation but I hate this movie. More accurately, I don't think I've ingested enough mind-altering substances to fully appreciate it. To me, it was an excruciatingly boring experience. Five minute long shots of objects floating around are snore inducing and scream pretentious to me. Sure its got great visuals but do we have to dawdle on each one, forever? Watched it all the way through but it felt like a thankless chore.

All that said, I do agree with you guys' basic interpretation of what the director is trying to do (I fall a little more in line with Senser's). I just couldn't care how he did it. Unless I find myself like Alex in Kubrick's own A Clockwork Orange, strapped to chair with my eyes pried open while 2001 plays on a screen in front of me, I'll never watch it again.[/rant]

[Senser81]

Five minute long shots of objects floating around are snore inducing and scream pretentious to me.

Sometimes when I take a huge dump, I'll look down between my legs and stare at the objects floating around. It might be pretentious, but its not snore-inducing.


2001 is my wife's least favorite movie. She can't stand it for the reasons dell stated. I like it because its different...most movies have so much noise and explosions like the latest Star Trek movie, its interesting to me to watch a movie like 2001. But I understand why people wouldn't like 2001. Its like watching a 'discovery' instead of a 'story'.

[nflman2033]

i have mixed emotions for the movie, there are some aspects that are brilliant, however it is also one of those movies that is slow and quiet and if you are not in the right frame of mind(whether natural or under the influence of substances) can be very hard to watch. the move i watch it the more i like it, but i won't argue or hate on the haters

[brees fan]

The book is so good, as is the rest of that series, I haven't got around to watching the movie yet, out of curiosity how much like the book is it?

[padman59]

The book is so good, as is the rest of that series, I haven't got around to watching the movie yet, out of curiosity how much like the book is it?

I haven't read the book, but from what I understand, the book was written in tandem with the movie. So I'd imagine it should be almost identical to the movie.

[nflman2033]

The book is so good, as is the rest of that series, I haven't got around to watching the movie yet, out of curiosity how much like the book is it?

pad has it Clarke was writing it at the same time Kubrick was working on the movie, they both conversed a lot so its really both of theirs, the only major difference is that in the book its Saturn and not Jupiter

2010 is one of it not my favorite book of all time

[jeffx]

I enjoyed 2001 because it was unlike most movies. There was no character development...and really, there weren't any characters. HAL probably had the most dialogue.

I agree with the your interpretation in a general sense. But...

 

I think your view on the evil of technology is too strong. I think the point is how humanity has allowed technology to take over their lives. I don't view the apes understanding the use of tools as a bad thing...if the monolith never appeared, then perhaps humans never would have existed in the first place...we would still be apes. I think HAL represents the laziness/malaise of humanity, which Dave has to overcome by using his own brain to outsmart HAL and regain control of the mission. Once Dave triumphs over HAL, an epiphany occurs and we are shown sort of a 'second enlightenment'. Mankind is reborn at the end of the movie. I see the monoliths as being an agent of change for the good...do you see them as being agents of change for evil?

Did you like the sequel?

[Senser81]

Did you like the sequel?

Not really. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was just like any other movie. Not very original or thought-provoking. Probably no need to do a sequel to 2001, either.