canoli2006
Member
Phantom Menace is overrated. And so are The Beatles.
Phantom Menace is overrated. And so are The Beatles.
Ok, now I'm going to be sick, from shaking my head so much.Needs more Godfather.
Fair enough. 2001 is the only Kubrick movie I've seen.
Fair enough. 2001 is the only Kubrick movie I've seen.
I feel like Clockwork Orange and Apocalypse Now are required viewing material for anyone that considers themselves a film buff... even considering they didn't enjoy 2001. I'd try them, the pacing is faster and the characterization much stronger.
That...isnt Kubrick
Yes but the problem is that overrated can easily be used as an insult. Saying that the masses are stupid or sheep or pretentious for thinking something is good while a single person disagrees.
While I love 2001, I will agree that its pretty unyielding in its pace, but at least it's pretty upfront with you about it as literally the first five minutes is just a black screen with ominous music playing (this is even before the actual title card), so I feel its first scene puts me in the correct mindset about the pace of the movie but I could see it not working for everyone. As for HAL being the only interesting character in the third act, I always thought that was the point. Each segment has some entity evoling inot a higher form and in the third act thats HAL, so it made sence to be that he was more interesting and "human" than the actual humans.
I'm not sure I'm 'better' than you, but I'm nearly positive my film tastes are.
I feel like Clockwork Orange and Apocalypse Now are required viewing material for anyone that considers themselves a film buff... even considering they didn't enjoy 2001. I'd try them, the pacing is faster and the characterization much stronger.
Right, I was confusing it with Full Metal Jacket. Excuse the brainfart.
And to add the point, The Shining is awesome too... didn't realize that was a Kubrick...
I think it's even better than the book, which I just finished a couple weeks ago. Because Kubrick goes for something Stephen King clearly shied away from, plot wise.
Clockwork Orange is definitively his worst film. All the problems I have with 2001 are mirrored in ACO but with the added detriment of the awful script and some really badly framed scenes.
I would agree that 2001 is a 'truly artistic' sci-fi film but I would not want other filmmakers to try and make another one. The wonder of science and space is limited by Kubrick's vision. When I think of art and science and fiction being mixed together perfectly, I think of Cosmos (the original). Kubrick's version of space and the future is one of stark boredom and advancements catalyzed by strange and god-like forces, whereas Sagan's version of space and the future are optimistic and very much anthropomorphic.
Maybe it's a tonal difference that I can't agree with.
I don't think Mystic River should have won Oscars, but awful movie? I thought it was pretty enjoyable.
A lot of twitchy kids with add that can't sit through a slow paced movie who regular a video game website? No, way, couldn't be that... the movie must just be worse than we think.
What makes you think an encounter with other intelligent life would be at all anthropomorphic? Or that 2001 isnt optimistic?
Kubrick probably wanted his audience to feel uncomfortable with the idea of relating with a computer though... either way, HAL is the most interesting regardless of act. Even the normal (mostly) humans in Act 2 are cardboard cutouts when we should have had some reason to care about them and what they were doing.
I'm not concerned, specifically, with the alien encounter. I'm concerned with the non-anthropomorphic advancement of human society. Kubrick and Clarke clearly have a certain disdain for what humanity has done with technology, on the surface, but it seems under that they are marking human advancement through alien intervention which also gives a pessimistic view of human ingenuity.
2001's optimism comes in the form of a spiritual encounter with alien life, not in the idea of humanities expansion throughout the solar system via scientific advancement.
Where are all the Hitchcock films?
I'm not concerned, specifically, with the alien encounter. I'm concerned with the non-anthropomorphic advancement of human society. Kubrick and Clarke clearly have a certain disdain for what humanity has done with technology, on the surface, but it seems under that they are marking human advancement through alien intervention which also gives a pessimistic view of human ingenuity.
2001's optimism comes in the form of a spiritual encounter with alien life, not in the idea of humanities expansion throughout the solar system via scientific advancement.
Tastes are one thing, but general knowledge?
Brainfart excused.
Also, The Shining is my favorite Kubrick film, in spite of all it's flaws.
When everyone up and down the land goes gaga for Howard Beale's "mad as hell" speech, the movie wants to score its big coup in a very obvious satirical way by resorting to dim-bulb crowd behaviour, without realising how floridly condescending its message is. Over time, it has only seemed more hectoring, and also more ineffectual – there’s a lot more to hold against TV networks these days than just a bit of amoral ratings-grabbing.
It's cool I wasn't necessarily trying to implicate you as using it as an insult. I just sometimes get overly mad at things like this article using it as such, which I think is the biggest problem of the whole thing, rather than its choices.I try not to use it as such, but with 2001 I really can't think of a better adjective. It's technically a masterpiece of effects and cinematography, while being bogged down by a weaponized version of Kubrick's film editing.
I understand that there are many ravenous fans of this film that believe it's the only Sci-Fi masterpiece, so I understand how it could be taken as a insult.
2001 was also the first Kubrick film I ever saw and I remember wanting to kill myself at how long the shot was of the astronaut floating through the air when HAL attacks him. Then I watched his other films and understood that you either submit to his style and pace or you can go kick rocks that I started to really appreciate him. They grow quite a bit on repeat viewings once you know what you're in for. Once I understood what kind of director he was I realized that the actors might as well be props.
This is just wrong.Yeah, I just... I believe in assessing movies on a first viewing. I think that's the correct way to judge a movie, even if they may be enjoyed more on repeat viewings.
inception and skyfall but no TDK?
hilarious
Rear Window is one of my all time favorite movies ;-)
TDK is only rated highly on GAF tho.
Everywhere else people realize it's just an okay crime movie.
TDK is seen as the best super hero movie by a large portion of people.TDK is only rated highly on GAF tho.
Everywhere else people realize it's just an okay crime movie.
Where are all the Hitchcock films?
This is just wrong.
Vertigo > Rear Window
But Rear Window > Psycho, which I don't like as much as the book.
It's not wrong, the answer to not enjoying a film isn't to watch it until you like it.
I'd say it's more about how you go into that first viewing, you have to tear down all your expectations and go in with an open mind. Only right way to do it.
Yeah, I just... I believe in assessing movies on a first viewing. I think that's the correct way to judge a movie, even if they may be enjoyed more on repeat viewings. This is because when you think about it, movies used to just be shown in theaters for a limited amount of time, before leaving and never returning. Back in the old days, there were no TV reruns or VHS or DVD or streaming services, so people would usually get to watch a movie once in the theater before they left forever. So that first viewing is paramount, and if a movie doesn't grab you there, then I do believe it has failed.
Judging or dismissing movies based on a single viewing is exponentially more absurd, any way you slice it, considering that people can change their mindset or mood over time, or that a film could actually be designed with multiple viewings in mind, etc.It's not wrong, the answer to not enjoying a film isn't to watch it until you like it.
Somehow I am skeptical of this claim. I'm not sure I believe you hold ultimate answer to the eternal question of "How to watch a movie the right way?" Just a hunch.I'd say it's more about how you go into that first viewing, you have to tear down all your expectations and go in with an open mind. Only right way to do it.