Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 3:45 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

(Moved from the "accidentally posted in film score discussion" thread)

So - I first saw this film when I was just a punk kid (read: a 13 year old nerd whose parents bought a BETA video recorder giving him a choice of 5 movies at the local video store).

It made no sense to me at all.

I watched it again (Still a nerd 30 years later) last night 'cos it was on TV.

It made no sense to me at all.

BUT - I can't stop thinking about it now. The visuals. The subtext. The Ssslllooooowww pacing.

And now, 24 hours after the second viewing, I think I am getting it. Well - not completely but it has had a lasting impact on me. In a much more positive way than The Phantom Menace.

I can't remember the last time that I have thought about a movie so much after seeing it.

I have never seen the follow up, 2010. Is it any good?

Anyone have any thoughts about the original film?

Excuse me, I have to go inside now. HAL, please open the door.

HAL do you read?

HAL?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:14 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

It's a glorious film, but unlike you I connected to it immediately, upon the first viewing - even though I was a relative youngster at the time, probably some 12-13 years old. I've grown to be MORE fond of it over the years. It's a film made almost EXACTLY according to my ideal filmmaking, exactly to my preference and taste.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:28 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

It's a glorious film, but unlike you I connected to it immediately, upon the first viewing - even though I was a relative youngster at the time, probably some 12-13 years old. I've grown to be MORE fond of it over the years. It's a film made almost EXACTLY according to my ideal filmmaking, exactly to my preference and taste.

I'm impressed that you connected with it at such a young age (especially when I still struggle with it now).
smile

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:46 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

I loved it, & saw it a number of times in London's Casino Cinerama Cinema, with that huge curved screen. These days, on a smaller screen it just seems boring. I won't be seeing it again.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:47 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)


I have never seen the follow up, 2010. Is it any good?


It is actually rather watchable, though a completely different animal then the first film.

it's biggest problem is that it explains everything. 2001 was criticised fot "not making sense", or not explaining what happened.
2010 uses the tired old device voice overs or diaries and radio communications to exactly explain to the viewers what is going on. It would not be so bad, but often the voice overs sound completely forced.

Still it's a well-acted film, pretty good looking, sleek. It has have a substandard score by David Shire for most of the film, little more then synclavier stingers.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:55 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

I loved it, & saw it a number of times in London's Casino Cinerama Cinema, with that huge curved screen. These days, on a smaller screen it just seems boring. I won't be seeing it again.

Yeah - I think a lot of the impact is lost on the small screen. It was obviously made with the cinema screen in mind. I guess in 1968 they didn't think about home theatre wink.

Still - watching it last night, it was hard to tell that the movie was 40 years old. Some of the concepts are VERY modern.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:00 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

Here's an exhaustive (and exhausting) thread on 2001 from a couple of years ago:

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=50343&forumID=7&archive=0

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:08 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

Here's an exhaustive (and exhausting) thread on 2001 from a couple of years ago:

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=50343&forumID=7&archive=0


That is a great read - even if only to remember some of the people who don't post here any more. I'd forgotton some of those names.

smile

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:37 AM   
 By:   Doug Raynes   (Member)

I loved it, & saw it a number of times in London's Casino Cinerama Cinema, with that huge curved screen. These days, on a smaller screen it just seems boring. I won't be seeing it again.

I had (and have) exactly the same experience. Loved it in Cinerama and saw it at the Casino several times but I have the DVD and it bores me senseless. Maybe the problem is that there are certain films which I've seen too many times and which have become so familiar that any re-showing becomes boring. I'm afraid that I have the same reaction now to BEN-HUR - and I once thought that to be one of the greatest of all films.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:51 AM   
 By:   joec   (Member)

(Moved from the "accidentally posted in film score discussion" thread)

So - I first saw this film when I was just a punk kid (read: a 13 year old nerd whose parents bought a BETA video recorder giving him a choice of 5 movies at the local video store).

It made no sense to me at all.

I watched it again (Still a nerd 30 years later) last night 'cos it was on TV.

It made no sense to me at all.

BUT - I can't stop thinking about it now. The visuals. The subtext. The Ssslllooooowww pacing.

And now, 24 hours after the second viewing, I think I am getting it. Well - not completely but it has had a lasting impact on me. In a much more positive way than The Phantom Menace.

I can't remember the last time that I have thought about a movie so much after seeing it.

I have never seen the follow up, 2010. Is it any good?

Anyone have any thoughts about the original film?

Excuse me, I have to go inside now. HAL, please open the door.

HAL do you read?

HAL?


Actually you have not seen it until you expierence it projected on a large Cinerama screen as I was fortunate enough to do during its first roadshow run. Who cares if it did not make sence the visuals on the giant sceen blew me away.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:56 AM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

I loved it, & saw it a number of times in London's Casino Cinerama Cinema, with that huge curved screen. These days, on a smaller screen it just seems boring. I won't be seeing it again.

I had (and have) exactly the same experience. Loved it in Cinerama and saw it at the Casino several times but I have the DVD and it bores me senseless. Maybe the problem is that there are certain films which I've seen too many times and which have become so familiar that any re-showing becomes boring. I'm afraid that I have the same reaction now to BEN-HUR - and I once thought that to be one of the greatest of all films.


That's what's so fantastic about music. Even a favorite film, I can't watch it more than once a year, always worry about spoiling it for myself. But a favorite piece of music I can listen to a bit of it (or all) every week!

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 8:14 AM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

I wanted to blow my brains out, from boredom, when I saw it during its original theatrical release in faux Cinerama, at The Boyd Theater, in Philadelphia. It was big, it was loud and it was D U L L. But then, I hate every film that takes place in outer space. It is the complete antithesis of what makes a good film, to me. It has no plot that engages, it has no character that I care about, it has no original score that I connect with, it moves at a snail's pace and, nothing in it looks real.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 12:27 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)



when I saw it during its original theatrical release in faux Cinerama, at The Boyd Theater,
in Philadelphia.


That’s where we saw it, too, PhillyJay.



It has no plot that engages, it has no character that I care about, it has no original score that
I connect with, it moves at a snail's pace and, nothing in it looks real.




So, aside from all those irrelevancies, what didja think? big grin wink big grin

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 12:48 PM   
 By:   Steve Johnson   (Member)

I wanted to blow my brains out, from boredom, when I saw it during its original theatrical release in faux Cinerama, at The Boyd Theater, in Philadelphia. It was big, it was loud and it was D U L L. But then, I hate every film that takes place in outer space. It is the complete antithesis of what makes a good film, to me. It has no plot that engages, it has no character that I care about, it has no original score that I connect with, it moves at a snail's pace and, nothing in it looks real.

I agree unhesitatingly. I walked out of the theater thinking "What in the hell was all this bizarre Sturm and Drang about?" Sounded great, though at the now demolished UA Cine theater here in Dallas, about the only compliment I'll give it. To this day, I do not know what that bullshit movie was trying to say....

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 12:51 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Okay, so it's no "Chicago"...

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 12:56 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

It was, is and always will be perhaps the best cinematic example of pure storytelling in visual terms. 1968 was Apollo 8's turn to venture out to the moon for the first time, then double back to earth on it's proving run. So 2001, as I have said in a previous post, was cashing in on the outer space phenom at a point in time when science fiction was merging with science fact. What Kubrick did though, to his credit, was to add quality to the movie landmark in the same way that NASA was pulling out all the stops on the way to the moon. It seems that one way or the other (and hopefully in both cases) the novelty has not worn off.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 1:10 PM   
 By:   Steve Johnson   (Member)

It was fun revisiting that old thread. I'll repost one of my comments here.

This film has been a pretenscious yawn for 40 years, and what's even worse, a dated special effects pretencious yawn for at least 20. Yawn.

Only now it's two and a half years later.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 1:42 PM   
 By:   Mark R. Y.   (Member)

It's a film that really advanced the art of cinema, but one problem is the deliberate irony of the people who inhabit it acting like unemotional computers - and HAL the computer emerging as the most "human" character!

I prefer Tarkovsky's SOLARIS - another deliberately paced meditative film that largely takes place on a spaceship. The human element is more moving than 2001's.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 1:46 PM   
 By:   CinemaScope   (Member)

It was fun revisiting that old thread. I'll repost one of my comments here.

This film has been a pretencious yawn for 40 years, and what's even worse, a dated special effects pretencious yawn for at least 20. Yawn.

Only now it's two and a half years later.


I know I posted that I now find this film boring, but I can't let you get away with that. The special effects haven't dated one little bit. The spacecraft shots look real (& looked real on the big, big screen). Much better than any CGI shots these days. Also look at any special effects sequence these days, they're cut really fast & full of loud sound effects. The shots in 2001 go on for a really long time, with just music & no sound effects, how many special effects today could stand up to such srutiny.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 1:48 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

It's a film that really advanced the art of cinema, but one problem is the deliberate irony of the people who inhabit it acting like unemotional computers - and HAL the computer emerging as the most "human" character!

I prefer Tarkovsky's SOLARIS - another deliberately paced meditative film that largely takes place on a spaceship. The human element is more moving than 2001's.



"Solaris". That's one heck of a movie. Art, as you say.

(I recall going in to the remake expecting to dislike it. But I didn't. I liked it. I found the ending more moving than I expected.)

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.