I see some people got my previous post deleted. I guess truth hurts.
This movie is as entertaining as staring at a wall. It's one of the worst movies ever made.
It was so bad I couldn't even finish it.
Just like all Kubrick movies, this dull crap is the cure for insomnia.
If you didn't finish it, then how can you even begin to make a reasoned judgment of the film as a whole?
Rhetorical question, of course, for just another trollish troll trolling trollishly.
Like gazing into a finely polished monolith, you only see what you bring to it.
IMDb2000: “Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?”
You (and people who think like you) are the only good thing about these boards closing. We won't be subjected to your sub-human burbling any more.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
The problem I have with 2001 is a person has to have read the book to understand what is going on in the movie.
shareThe novel and the screenplay were produced concurrently. Clarke's novel is hard science fiction. For example he makes
it clear that the monolith teaches the ape-men new ways of thinking. Kubrick preferred to let it be a mystery how the
monolith changed the ape-men. I prefer Kubrick's approach.
"If 2001 has stirred your emotions, your subconscious, your mythological yearnings, then it has succeeded."-Kubrick.
wrong, that's your problem, not a problem of the movie. I never read the novel yet it is pretty clear what is going on. Your focus determines your reality. Your imagination fills the voids.
shareI found it pretty boring as well tbh
'Ok' enough i suppose...might even have made a fine short film
[deleted]
I take then that you don't care for "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (Strauss)?"
share