 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
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....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
