MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I've always found 2010 well-made & enjoyable, if it's taken solely on its own more modest terms. A solid entertainment with good actors ... but in no way a real sequel to 2001, which can have no sequel. More of a fanfic "what if?" even though actually written by Clarke. To me, it's a sequel to his book, not to Kubrick's film
Not high, just visionary.
Although some viewers at the time made us of mind-enhancing/expanding substances while watching the film, to be sure. But those aren't necessary to understand the film, which is complete in itself.
Again, agree! I've always thought the ending was intended to make us feel as overwhelmed & ultimately transformed by what Dave had experienced as he was.
Yes, the answers are there! You're right, Kubrick was saying something specific & meaningful, but had the visionary sense not to impose & spoon-feed any One Right Answer. He actually trusted the viewers to absorb the experience on their own & arrive at their own understanding, whether it was intellectual or visceral.
You don't need to read the book to understand the film. In fact, the "here's what happened" aspect of the book detracts from the primal experience of the film.
I not only like this movie, I love it. But to me, it's as much a symphonic tone poem as it is a movie, something to be experienced more than analyzed. I first saw it at age 14 in 1968, and have watched it again many times since over the decades, finding new things in it every time.
As for the ending, its immediate meaning is indeed quite clear. What matters more to me is the feeling it leaves me with, rather than any analysis of it. Oh, I can talk about the details of the entire film & its symbolism & all, and that can be quite enjoyable ... but that's secondary to the actual experience of it, at least for me.
The viewpoint of the angels is B&W, the viewpoint of human beings is color.
Wasn't that Welles with Nicole in the end credits, hand in hand in the surf on that beach?
I agree with you absolutely. So often a wonderful work is inevitably diminished by sequels, spinoffs, prequels, reboots, etc. DARK CITY is perfect as it is. Nothing more need be or should be added to it. Let the viewing experience remain whole & complete in itself, leaving the viewer with fascinating ideas & questions to ponder afterward.
I agree with you. Jane played Iris just right, with plenty of quiet nuances.
Except that Field of Dreams isn't just a baseball movie, it's about so much more than that.
Not only holds up, but becomes more meaningful over time as I age.
Yes. And I also like to think that it was also his realization of of the Ring's power, and his own clear-eyed humility & decency, that made him refuse to physically hold & carry the Ring itself. He knew what it was capable of doing to him, not only from his brief moment of using it, but by seeing its effect on both Gollum & Frodo, day after day after day. Frodo was the appointed bearer of the Ring, so he must carry it, not Sam or anyone else. But he could still carry Frodo, even if it took the last of his strength. That humble understanding is what makes him so noble, a word he'd never apply to himself. But he's deserving of it.
While it's about baseball, it's also about far more than that: fathers & sons, lost or abandoned dreams regained or redeemed, clinging to one's highest ideals, what one's life is really all about, etc. If it's somewhat sentimental, it earns that sentimentality honestly. And given that current times are so much about sneering snark & adolescent posturing & glib cynicism & blind rage, it's good to be reminded of basic human decency, genuine love & compassion, and living an authentic life as best one can. It's a deeply humane movie.
Well said. Any series adapting Tolkien's work should reflect his ideas & his ideals. I'd personally love to see more diverse fantasies, and in fact many good ones have been written, just waiting to be filmed ... but Tolkien specifically stated that his wish was to create a mythology for England, one that honored all the things he felt were part of that particular culture & history. And interestingly enough, readers from any other cultures, with their own histories, have found it just as meaningful & applicable to their own lives as its originally intended audience. Great writing tends to be universal in the end. It's why I can be just as moved by James Baldwin as by Jane Austen, or the Japanese court poets of 1000 years ago as by the English Romantics, for example.
I'm on the progressive side, and I like Tolkien's emphasis on morality, on doing what's right for the greater good of all, just as much as I like his deep love of nature & his concerns about the hunger for power & control over others.
I just watched it on YouTube. Your comments are spot-on. It has genuine suspense, psychological depth, questions of morality vis a vis the increasing domination of technology over human life & human experience --everything a thoughtful adult would want from a solid story that's made for adults.
Watts never claimed to be enlightened. He was a flawed human being, as we all are, to some degree or other. But he was extremely well-educated without ever being snobbish or condescending; he had a self-deprecating sense of humor & didn't present himself as some all-wise guru; and he was a humane, thoughtful guide for many people, as he continues to be decades after his death. Yes, he did develop a problem with alcohol, unfortunately. But that doesn't negate the rest of his life & work.
Definitely the best!
In the novels, anyway, M is characterized as a tough, no-nonsense, play-through-the-pain sort of man, one who doesn't believe in too much coddling. In his own way, he's trying to help Bond by being blunt with him: "The man's dead, there's work to be done, get on with your job and do it."