What the hell? So I'm bored out of my freaking skull for the first 2 hours of this thing, and then Mr. Spaceman goes on a drug induced trip through wonderland, some old guy is eating at a table, and then he's not there but there's a monolith where he should be...and Mr. Spaceman is laying in bed as an old man and then turns into a baby, is encased in a bubble and for some reason is looking at the earth. Uhh...what the hell? I REALLY liked Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, but I have no idea what Kubrick was trying to do with this. It's slow, it's boring, and it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Help?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2001: A Space Odyssey - What did I just watch?
- Thread starter Alucard
- Start date
- Status
I thought the middle part with Dave and HAL was good. The beginning and ending, though, were the kind of contrived crap that makes me hate art house movies. Supposedly the monolith shows up whenever man creates a new weapon, thus the club turning into a nuclear weapon in the beginning sequence. I assume that the movie was more impressive before every single movie set in space after it ripped off its special effects. Anyway, I'm probably not giving the movie a completely fair review since I only saw it once a few years ago, but that's what I thought about it at the time; maybe I'll give it another shot someday.
A piece of art? Sure, the last 20 minutes of the movie are extremely trippy but I still have no clue what the point of the film was. Why show the apes? What's the significance of HAL? What's the significance of Jupiter and the monolith?...and what was the ending supposed to symbolize aside from some sort of spiritual/innocent imagery?...That we're all still very young and can't comprehend the universe or shouldn't try to comprehend some things?...It's just so...blah.
Naked Snake
Member
You're supposed to watch it under drug influence 
Jak140 said:
Yeah, I understood the part about the weapons. From the start I figured that it had something to do with man-made violence, etc. Still, that doesn't excuse the movie from being almost completely boring. Sure, it did give a giant view of space and the enormity of it, and I guess on some levels it was really impressive, especially for the time, but I don't need to watch a guy floating out into space for 2 minutes!
Alucard said:
I'm spoiling things here and I see no reason to tag them. If you're in this thread without having seen the movie you may as well leave anyways heh.
The monolith is a tool for accelerating the development of the species. The one on Earth caused humanity to develop tools. The one on the moon signalled our development into spaceflight. The one on Jupiter was the gateway to further development by travelling to the aliens who invented the monolith themselves.
Dave is the baby at the end (he's called the Star Child in the book). He's basically been jumped several levels of evolution in order to watch over the rest of humanity (and in the book, his first act is to destroy all of Earth's orbital nuclear weapon platforms).
It's hardly arthouse. It's pretty typical sci-fi fare.
And for the record, I find it dull AND I love it. Also I hope you realize just HOW impressive it was 'for its time'. This movie was made before the moon landing, ten years before Star Wars.
way more
Member
I think the end is about him aging in the universe and being reborn with the help monolith into a star child that is a greater form of human. Anyway, it's Kubrik, it looks cool, and it made sci-fi legitimate in the theaters. Maybe, to put yourself in a 70's frame of mind you could trip acid to watch the last 20 minutes, just like our older generation.
Idle Will Kill
Banned
Go to the message boards at imdb.com. You will find any answers you seek and can ask if you don't.
I thought it was a great movie. Didn't find it boring in the least.
And just because something is different and not done in the typical Hollywood fashion doesn't mean it's automatically contrived crap.
I thought it was a great movie. Didn't find it boring in the least.
And just because something is different and not done in the typical Hollywood fashion doesn't mean it's automatically contrived crap.
Idle Will Kill said:
I assume you're refering to me. Did I say that? No. I said that those were my thoughts about this particular movie, and I even qualified that opinion with the statement that I probably wasn't being completely fair since I hadn't seen the movie in a several years. So, if you are refering to me, in the future I'd prefer it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
There are four types of movies
1) General bullshit (complete crap)
2) Movies that are good fun, but nothing deep (popcorn flicks)
3) Movies which are well-crafted and interesting in all facets
4) Movies that are, plot-wise, dull, but for which a new level of appreciation can be reached when you analyze it from an artistic and technical point of view.
Guess which category 2001 falls into?
If you take a good film class in college, you'll learn why #4 is so important. I've watched some terribly boring movies in the classes I've taken which suddenly become about 100x more interesting when you get to discuss them with other people. That's because what's actually interesting is imbedded deep within the form and style of the movie. When you talk with other people you start noticing things you never did before and you start formulating new theories and eventually the puzzle pieces start falling in place and you realize what a grand masterwork the film actually is. This does not stop it from being boring to watch, of course, but you suddenly realize what IS good about it.
I was forced to watch Last Year at Marienbad in one class. This is the longest, most boring, most absolutely confusing movie I've ever seen. And yet, we found so much to talk about when we actually began discussing it in class.
1) General bullshit (complete crap)
2) Movies that are good fun, but nothing deep (popcorn flicks)
3) Movies which are well-crafted and interesting in all facets
4) Movies that are, plot-wise, dull, but for which a new level of appreciation can be reached when you analyze it from an artistic and technical point of view.
Guess which category 2001 falls into?
If you take a good film class in college, you'll learn why #4 is so important. I've watched some terribly boring movies in the classes I've taken which suddenly become about 100x more interesting when you get to discuss them with other people. That's because what's actually interesting is imbedded deep within the form and style of the movie. When you talk with other people you start noticing things you never did before and you start formulating new theories and eventually the puzzle pieces start falling in place and you realize what a grand masterwork the film actually is. This does not stop it from being boring to watch, of course, but you suddenly realize what IS good about it.
I was forced to watch Last Year at Marienbad in one class. This is the longest, most boring, most absolutely confusing movie I've ever seen. And yet, we found so much to talk about when we actually began discussing it in class.
I like a lot of off-beat movies that aren't the typical Hollywood fare. I just wasn't overly crazy about this movie. Now that I actually know what year it was made in, it's more impressive on a technical scale alone, but the whole thing moved incredibly slow. I don't see how you can find the beginning to be all that entertaining...it's a bunch of monkeys jumping around, hitting eachother, sleeping, and a bunch of still shots of deserted landscapes. I LIKE slower films, but this one was just TOO slow and nothing really interesting happened until the very end.
Thanks for the story clarifications. The ideas are nice, but the movie itself just isn't my cup of tea I guess. I almost fell asleep 3-4 times during it.
Thanks for the story clarifications. The ideas are nice, but the movie itself just isn't my cup of tea I guess. I almost fell asleep 3-4 times during it.
Belfast said:There are four types of movies
1) General bullshit (complete crap)
2) Movies that are good fun, but nothing deep (popcorn flicks)
3) Movies which are well-crafted and interesting in all facets
4) Movies that are, plot-wise, dull, but for which a new level of appreciation can be reached when you analyze it from an artistic and technical point of view.
Guess which category 2001 falls into?
If you take a good film class in college, you'll learn why #4 is so important. I've watched some terribly boring movies in the classes I've taken which suddenly become about 100x more interesting when you get to discuss them with other people. That's because what's actually interesting is imbedded deep within the form and style of the movie. When you talk with other people you start noticing things you never did before and you start formulating new theories and eventually the puzzle pieces start falling in place and you realize what a grand masterwork the film actually is. This does not stop it from being boring to watch, of course, but you suddenly realize what IS good about it.
I was forced to watch Last Year at Marienbad in one class. This is the longest, most boring, most absolutely confusing movie I've ever seen. And yet, we found so much to talk about when we actually began discussing it in class.
I've taken two film classes, as well as a good fiction class that has taught me to look deeper into the things I read and watch. Yes, things like this are more interesting to discuss in groups but like you said, it doesn't stop the movie from being boring. I've had to watch an old Dziga Vertov documentary from the early 30s that was just an hour and a half of film without any dialogue or written messages between scenes...yet, the class still managed to (passionately) discuss what the movie was about and analyzed its deeper meanings. Still...it was really fucking boring. I think films should be both entertaining and thought provoking.
karasu said:
I'm sure the more I read about it and talk about it, the IDEA of the film will become more attractive than the actual film itself. Like I said above, I REALLY liked Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, but I just didn't enjoy 2001 on a lot of levels. Clockwork Orange is another one I have to watch again...I saw it for the first time about 5 years ago and didn't think much of it outside of that it was shock value for the sake of itself.
mjq jazz bar
Banned
My favorite movies tend to be plodding
The thing with 2001 is that despite letting Kubrick at it, the whole magilla just doesn't translate to film; it's why 2010 is, you know, watchable. The first thing I tell anyone who complains about 2001 is, simply, "Read the book, the movie will make much more sense."
And it does.
And it does.
Smiles and Cries
Member
i liked the move but had to see it a few times to get into it...
http://www.kubrick2001.com/2001.html
http://www.kubrick2001.com/2001.html
Smiles and Cries
Member
mac said:
yeah about the same for me...
just wish man really advanced as much as those movies
I don't even understand the last part really, but it is still my favorite movie.
One of the main themes of the movie is evolution. That is why the ape scene was included. So we also have the significance of HAL representing the evolution of artificial intelligence. Maybe the last part was another step in evolution.. dunno.
Something kind of interesting is how the humans seemed almost emotionless and robotic whereas HAL seemed the most human of them all. His death scene is one of my favorites of all time.
Anyway, I think it's a very love or hate movie. And truthfully, I think there are way more people who hate it than love it. I found the cinematography and creative use of sound kept my attention and actually provided a lot of tension throughout.
Another key is to make sure to take the intermission. Get up, go get a snack. It really helps.
One of the main themes of the movie is evolution. That is why the ape scene was included. So we also have the significance of HAL representing the evolution of artificial intelligence. Maybe the last part was another step in evolution.. dunno.
Something kind of interesting is how the humans seemed almost emotionless and robotic whereas HAL seemed the most human of them all. His death scene is one of my favorites of all time.
Anyway, I think it's a very love or hate movie. And truthfully, I think there are way more people who hate it than love it. I found the cinematography and creative use of sound kept my attention and actually provided a lot of tension throughout.
Another key is to make sure to take the intermission. Get up, go get a snack. It really helps.
Dagless M.D.
Member
You should just watch the sequel
I've only seen 2001 once, a few year ago. I knew what to expect. I really liked it, because all scenes (even the boring ones) had a very deliberate purpose. Now with what I've read about the book, I'll order it one of these days.
So far, I haven't seen a Kubrick movie I didn't like a lot. Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove were both great IMO. Spartacus was nice too. Haven't seen A Clockwork Orange yet, but I've heard good things about it.
Anyway, how is 2010? Is it a worthly (whatever that might be) sequel to 2001?
And to whomever likes good sci-fi reads, check out the Manifold novels, by Stephen Baxter. I've only read the third one, Origin, but I liked it a lot, and I'll be buying Time and Space soon enough.
So far, I haven't seen a Kubrick movie I didn't like a lot. Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove were both great IMO. Spartacus was nice too. Haven't seen A Clockwork Orange yet, but I've heard good things about it.
Anyway, how is 2010? Is it a worthly (whatever that might be) sequel to 2001?
And to whomever likes good sci-fi reads, check out the Manifold novels, by Stephen Baxter. I've only read the third one, Origin, but I liked it a lot, and I'll be buying Time and Space soon enough.
Crazymoogle
Member
Falch said:
Sort of. Art of Filmmaking wise, no - its like the action sequel type. 2010 is pretty rigidly based on the book, with the sort of "lets make this a movie for everyone" mantra. The graceful, 60s space exploration world shown by Kubrick is replaced by a standard, cold war style 80's environment.
That being said, the characters are likeable enough, the story twists at the beginning and end are worth watching, and it gives you a damned interesting explanation for what the hell the Jupiter Monolith is doing, where's HAL or Bowman, and so on.
Naked Snake
Member
Falch said:
IMO, yes.
If you don't get the Monolith, then you need to rewatch the first scene. At the beginning, it's just primates doing their thing, day in and day out... then suddenly the Monolith appears and as a result one primate does something revolutionary... he discovers how to use something as a club. In a small amount of time this guy dominates the group. In an extention of this scene of discovering tools, as he throws the club into the air... when it comes down instead of the club, you see a space station... summing up the entire timeline of human technology in a couple seconds. (It's not about weapons. )
It basically represents supernatural intervention, as further made clear in 2010 when the effect it has on Jupiter is made known.
)It basically represents supernatural intervention, as further made clear in 2010 when the effect it has on Jupiter is made known.
Duck of Death
Member
I absolutely love 2001. The cinematography is beautiful, the use of sound is amazing, and it is a great film to watch many times to analyze both its technical achievements and its deeper meanings.
I never found it to be boring even though it is a very slow-paced film.
I never found it to be boring even though it is a very slow-paced film.
Ahh... okay, thanks for clearing that up, I really need to see the film again.Hitokage said:If you don't get the Monolith, then you need to rewatch the first scene. At the beginning, it's just primates doing their thing, day in and day out... then suddenly the Monolith appears and as a result one primate does something revolutionary... he discovers how to use something as a club. In a small amount of time this guy dominates the group. In an extention of this scene of discovering tools, as he throws the club into the air... when it comes down instead of the club, you see a space station... summing up the entire timeline of human technology in a couple seconds. (It's not about weapons.
2010 is an entertaining movie in its own right, as long as you don't compare it to 2001. It has some beautiful visual effects, and it's well-directed.
Re: the books--I barely even remember the book version of 2001, so I won't comment on it. But of the three sequels, 2010 is good, 2061 rocks (though it'd be impossible to make it into a movie) and 3001 is absolute garbage.
Re: the books--I barely even remember the book version of 2001, so I won't comment on it. But of the three sequels, 2010 is good, 2061 rocks (though it'd be impossible to make it into a movie) and 3001 is absolute garbage.
tree fiddy
Member
I didn't like 2001 but I'll check out 2010 sometime.
I really hated the part where they discover the monolith on the moon and the sound gets all high pitched and freaky. Ugh.
I really hated the part where they discover the monolith on the moon and the sound gets all high pitched and freaky. Ugh.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
2001 utterly confused me when I first saw it 10 years ago. A couple years back I watched it again, figuring age would help. Nope. If I wasn't watching it in a crowd, though, I think the last half hour or so would've been much better if I sat right in front of the screen and screamed constantly. I mean that in a good way; wish I could use its freakiness to full potential.
My 195-characters-or-less review of 2010:
My 195-characters-or-less review of 2010:
Diomedeskun
Member
The book is definitely worth reading and is a relatively easy read. All the strange in the movie comes from the lack of dialogue and the fact that it is entirely Kubrick's take on an idea Arthur C. Clark had.
Was shown it in Grade 11 English...my insane, pedophile English teacher decided to show 16 year-olds 2001 and get them to right a movie review.
I was put into a group of four people. I wrote the review myself, because they had absolutely no clue what had just occured, what the hell was going on, and seriously might as well have been staring at a blank screen. I knew of the film, wrote the review, and generally liked it. I think my view may be a little bit blurry, since it WAS more interesting than the pedophile English class, and thus maybe I convinced myself it was interesting. But, I got the Monolith thing pretty well...but the entire last ten minutes was basically a blank screen for me, and I've yet to TRULY understand it. Not that I've even bothered to try.
I was put into a group of four people. I wrote the review myself, because they had absolutely no clue what had just occured, what the hell was going on, and seriously might as well have been staring at a blank screen. I knew of the film, wrote the review, and generally liked it. I think my view may be a little bit blurry, since it WAS more interesting than the pedophile English class, and thus maybe I convinced myself it was interesting. But, I got the Monolith thing pretty well...but the entire last ten minutes was basically a blank screen for me, and I've yet to TRULY understand it. Not that I've even bothered to try.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Diomedeskun said:
I've not seen a lot of Kubrick's work, but he does seem to make things his own. Watching The Shining was quite a different experience than reading it.
Lucky Forward
Member
One of the themes of 2001 was that technology was de-humanizing people. The monolith inspired the use of technology in the man-apes, and in the jump cut to the satellite we see how far mankind has taken it. But the inhabitants of the space station, moon base, and the spaceship Discovery are all bland, uninteresting people. Dave Bowman and Frank Poole are essentially caretakers of the ship without very much to do because technology, in the form of HAL 9000, really runs the ship. The astronauts are seen exercising, sunbathing, drawing, and playing chess, but never really doing anything important until HAL's breakdown.
Kubrick's idea seems to be that the aliens behind the monolith gave man technology, but now man has taken it as far as it can go, and he is stagnating. It is time for another monolith-inspired evolutionary leap -- the Starchild.
If stretches of 2001 seem boring, it's because Kubrick's theme is that technology has made us so.
Kubrick's idea seems to be that the aliens behind the monolith gave man technology, but now man has taken it as far as it can go, and he is stagnating. It is time for another monolith-inspired evolutionary leap -- the Starchild.
If stretches of 2001 seem boring, it's because Kubrick's theme is that technology has made us so.
2040 you find out the Monoliths are there to monitor and accelerate life on other planets IIRC.
Intresting fact:- Kubrick was a fan of Doctor Who and visited the studios after seeing a story with the Daleks in which features weightless astronauts to find out how they achived the FX on a budget.
Intresting fact:- Kubrick was a fan of Doctor Who and visited the studios after seeing a story with the Daleks in which features weightless astronauts to find out how they achived the FX on a budget.
- Status