MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Good response!
I love 2001. but I'd never get upset with someone for not loving it, and I wouldn't insult them by saying they're too dense or dumb to get it. It's always & finally a matter of personal taste in these things.
But literature involves human psychology, among other things. And of course one student's dry, boring, depressing book is another student's insightful, thoughtful, enriching book.
I can't say that I loved <i>Lord of the Flies</i>, but it remained with me, made me uncomfortable & uneasy, and really did make me think. It said something sadly true about human nature at its worst. I'm glad to have read it, but it's not a book I want to return to now.
I think the aim of assigning such books is to present (or even confront) students with sometimes troubling stories & ideas that will broaden their understanding of the human condition. Granted, this doesn't always work for every student. I hated <i>The Scarlet Letter</i> when it was assigned as part of my 11th grade English class; it was only some years later that an interest in classic American literature made me read it again, of my own accord—and that second time, I actually got what it was about & quite enjoyed it. On the other hand, some books that I loved reading just for myself in high school just didn't hold up when I returned to them years later, striking me as shallow & simplistic.
In any case, just because a book is a classic doesn't mean that everyone will like it, no matter what age they are. And again, nothing wrong with that.
It's based on Colin Wilson's novel <i>The Space Vampires</i> but is somewhat simplified and (dare I say it) considerably stripped down.
I agree with you & Roger!
I like it enough to recommend it, but I do agree that it doesn't quite gel as it should. Still, some good performances & ideas in there, enough to keep me interested. I only wish it had been a little tighter.
I was lucky enough to see her in concert as a supporting act in the late 1990s, and she was a stunning performer, outshining the headliners without even trying. Well deserving of your post!
Dry & boring to some, fascinating & emotionally complex to others. We had to read <i>Lord of the Flies</i> in high school & I was gripped by it right to the end. It provoked quite a bit of thoughtful class discussion afterwards. And <i>To Kill a Mockingbird</i> is just sublime, both as book & as movie, at least to me. If they don't connect with you, that's fine. Tastes differ, and nothing wrong with that.
I'd add that <i>Things To Come</i> from the 1930s is a reasonable stab at a serious science-fiction movie about ideas. And the original <i>The Day the Earth Stood Still</i> from the 1950s, as well. Just re-watched the latter recently & it holds up very well.
But <i>2001</i> is in a singular class of its own, without question.
MAUS had enough historical & artistic value to win a Pulitzer, for one thing. You might try reading it before dismissing it.
And it was clearly visible to his friends, confidantes, and staff during his second term, who did their best to conceal it. Much as I disliked him & his policies as President, that's an awful fate for any human being.
A wonderful actress, all too often overlooked.
So saddened by this news. Especially because he brought so much joy to millions with that role, yet found little happiness in his own troubled life.
All too common, alas.
There was only ever 1 reason to make 3 movies of The Hobbit: $$$$$$$.
And that's a pity, because a single movie that captured the tone of the children's book would have been wonderful. To this day, the Rankin-Bass TV adaption from decades ago is still a better & more faithful version of The Hobbit.
I think you're right, as I'm going from memory of those last pages, and may well be conflating a couple of different scenes.
My pleasure! Hope you'll enjoy the book. :)
Yes, it's really more of a novella. But it packs a lot into that relatively small number of pages.
Here's a link for Project Gutenberg that has the complete original text:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35/35-h/35-h.htm
More like outwardly cynical & mocking as a defense mechanism, due to his damaged childhood. And he came from a background where that was the norm for all boys growing up. Even as a Beatle, he was looking for ways to grow; after the Beatles, he eventually got a good portion of the way there, mellowing out & honestly expressing regret for many of the things he had said & done as a younger man.