The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Weirdest damn thing I ever did saw.
Feel a little disappointed that I never took the opportunity to watch this before. Watched it in bed last night as a last resort type of thing and was transfixed by it. Hard to describe what it was I found so compelling, perhaps just that it was such a break from the usual dramatic cinematic nonsense. Kubrick always was a few cans short of a six pack, but gifted in the art of film-making.
The effects were clearly dated but outstanding for the time. Having never seen it I had assumed that it was made around the mid-eighties, but for 1968 it's impressive to say the least. What got me I think was the silence - no music or sound effects for long periods, which really draws you in and gives the whole thing a surreal quality I've never experienced before.
The ending just turned into psychedelia and had I been inebriated, I'd have wondered as to whether I imagined the whole thing.
Madness really, but cinema at its most inventive, imaginative and compelling. I doubt we'll see anything like this again in modern film.
Feel a little disappointed that I never took the opportunity to watch this before. Watched it in bed last night as a last resort type of thing and was transfixed by it. Hard to describe what it was I found so compelling, perhaps just that it was such a break from the usual dramatic cinematic nonsense. Kubrick always was a few cans short of a six pack, but gifted in the art of film-making.
The effects were clearly dated but outstanding for the time. Having never seen it I had assumed that it was made around the mid-eighties, but for 1968 it's impressive to say the least. What got me I think was the silence - no music or sound effects for long periods, which really draws you in and gives the whole thing a surreal quality I've never experienced before.
The ending just turned into psychedelia and had I been inebriated, I'd have wondered as to whether I imagined the whole thing.
Madness really, but cinema at its most inventive, imaginative and compelling. I doubt we'll see anything like this again in modern film.
Page:
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> The film is purposefully vague, and no, I don't have one
> particular opinion about what Kubrick was trying to say with it.
Do you have any opinion at all on it? If you don't I fail to see how you can call it a masterpiece. You say it provokes discussion yet you have no opinion to discuss.
> The film is purposefully vague, and no, I don't have one
> particular opinion about what Kubrick was trying to say with it.
Do you have any opinion at all on it? If you don't I fail to see how you can call it a masterpiece. You say it provokes discussion yet you have no opinion to discuss.
JFH wrote:
> ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say -
> the important thing is that it expands your imagination.
>
> You keep mentioning the fact that it has a different meaning for
> everybody and each person needs to make up there own mind, but you
> haven't actually stated what you believed the film meant. You have
> come up with various sentences complete with complex words to
> describe the film but it's all been so vague. What did it mean to
> you? Do you even know?
The film is purposefully vague, and no, I don't have one particular opinion about what Kubrick was trying to say with it. I didn't consider any of my words to be 'complex', and I did say that I considered the film to possibly be a secular mythology of the age of man. That's all I can say. But complaining about monkeys suggests to me that it just wasn't your thing.
> ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say -
> the important thing is that it expands your imagination.
>
> You keep mentioning the fact that it has a different meaning for
> everybody and each person needs to make up there own mind, but you
> haven't actually stated what you believed the film meant. You have
> come up with various sentences complete with complex words to
> describe the film but it's all been so vague. What did it mean to
> you? Do you even know?
The film is purposefully vague, and no, I don't have one particular opinion about what Kubrick was trying to say with it. I didn't consider any of my words to be 'complex', and I did say that I considered the film to possibly be a secular mythology of the age of man. That's all I can say. But complaining about monkeys suggests to me that it just wasn't your thing.
My uncle worked in a garage near the film studios and managed to get a look at the rotating set they used for some of the space scenes. He was pretty impressed by the technology at the time.
It's a great film, pity that 2010 was such a basic follow up. It followed the story, but had hardly any outstanding moments.
It's a great film, pity that 2010 was such a basic follow up. It followed the story, but had hardly any outstanding moments.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say - the important thing is that it expands your imagination.
You keep mentioning the fact that it has a different meaning for everybody and each person needs to make up there own mind, but you haven't actually stated what you believed the film meant. You have come up with various sentences complete with complex words to describe the film but it's all been so vague. What did it mean to you? Do you even know?
> You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say - the important thing is that it expands your imagination.
You keep mentioning the fact that it has a different meaning for everybody and each person needs to make up there own mind, but you haven't actually stated what you believed the film meant. You have come up with various sentences complete with complex words to describe the film but it's all been so vague. What did it mean to you? Do you even know?
It's an excellent film and sits deservedly in my personal top 5.
"Profound" is a word I'd use to describe it.
Let's face it, the matrix was created for a wide audience. It had some great ideas, but its downfall was its own ambitiousness in my view. What was suggested in the first film was turned into a parody in the follow up films.
As some of the reviews of 2001 have said, it's a personal film - it has different meaning to every person who views it. It's not supposed to have a set in stone plot as such, it's more a statement on human existence and our perception of it. I'd say it's a secular view of human mythology. You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say - the important thing is that it expands your imagination. A plot is not a prerequisite for a good film. Fine art is not always something that can be put into words.
I've had a beer and that's why I'm getting all poetic. It's time for bed though, I've a 2.5 hour drive to Newcastle tomorrow. Keep watching the skeeeeeeez.
Let's face it, the matrix was created for a wide audience. It had some great ideas, but its downfall was its own ambitiousness in my view. What was suggested in the first film was turned into a parody in the follow up films.
As some of the reviews of 2001 have said, it's a personal film - it has different meaning to every person who views it. It's not supposed to have a set in stone plot as such, it's more a statement on human existence and our perception of it. I'd say it's a secular view of human mythology. You can make your own mind up about what the film is trying to say - the important thing is that it expands your imagination. A plot is not a prerequisite for a good film. Fine art is not always something that can be put into words.
I've had a beer and that's why I'm getting all poetic. It's time for bed though, I've a 2.5 hour drive to Newcastle tomorrow. Keep watching the skeeeeeeez.
A lot of the time I didn't know quite what it was that I was meant to be questioning. At least with the Matrix you can follow the plot fairly easily. After watching the animated video I linked to, the film did begin to seem a lot smarter and meaningful and I'm sure that on a second viewing I'd be able to enjoy a lot of it far more. It's just the thought of having to sit through watching those bloody monkeys again that puts me off.
I enjoy films that force you to question the very nature of perception and existence. There have been modern attempts, such as the Matrix, but they just try to confuse you with half explained prophecies and false trails. 2001 is one of those gems that just is what it is - a piece of cinematic art. You take away from it what you will, but it isn't arrogant in the way films like the matrix are. They do their best to confuse the viewer into thinking that the glorious truth is beyond his/her comprehension. 2001 just takes you on a ride for 2 hours, without pretentiousness, and allows you to form your own opinion as to the true meaning.
There are very few films that I can think of that do this.
There are very few films that I can think of that do this.
It made a lot more sense after watching this: [URL]http://www.kubrick2001.com/[/URL]
I bought it on DVD a while ago. The first half an hour is just monkeys, lots of monkeys. They aren't even the good sort that do funny things, they just sit and stare.
Then you spend ten minutes watching space ships and other random bits and bobs before finally getting some speech. The mid-section of the film with HAL makes some sense and I began to feel I was following it but then the ending confused me. It made no sense.
Then you spend ten minutes watching space ships and other random bits and bobs before finally getting some speech. The mid-section of the film with HAL makes some sense and I began to feel I was following it but then the ending confused me. It made no sense.
Page: