Anyone else out there just loathe "2001--A Space Odyssey"?

[roquat]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:03am

Anyone? I'd hate to think I was totally alone on this. "Oliver" beat it for Best Picture, and I think I'm the only person on earth who thinks that decision was justified.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:05am

love it........so much deeper than Oliver (I have nothing against Oliver) and an amazing fil for its time.

2001 is a classic......

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:08am

I am with you. Lovely to look at but the acting was beyond deadly. Everyone wanted to be chic saying how great it was. Visually it was superb but to me much ( including the convoluted ending ) was incomprehensible.

The only saving grace was seeing it in Cinerama @ the Loews Capitol in NYC. Much of the visuals were mind blowing especially for that time. If I recall, about 20 minutes were cut after opening because some critics complained it dragged. Surprising Kubrick ( perfectionist he was ) removed anything unless the suits @ MGM demanded it

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:16am

I barely made it through the apes before I turned it off.

[YankeesFan175]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:20am

it was on TV a while back and i decided to watch it. after 5 minutes of watching apes i was like "ummmm........" and i turned it off.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:40am

Awww, Mr. Roxy, didn't you think the apes turned in 'tours des forces' performances? Only kidding. I didn't think the acting in this film had much to do with it. The movie was visually so stunning (as you mentioned) it more than compensated for any acting. I think the music, the pace (which to me was necessarily slow) and the visuals combined to create an atmosphere which took you away and brought you right into another dimension. In this dimension, the limited degree of acting seemed just right. Given the mood of the film, I just can't see any histrionics belonging there. The bland level of speaking was just right and called for. At least it did so for me, and that's how I judge many films-if they bring me into their world. And let's not forget how far before its time this film is. No one can deny the vision of Kubrick.

Updated On: 12/17/05 at 11:40 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:54am

Mad Magazine did a devastating parody of it called "201 Minutes of A Space Idiocy" The slab was part of a prehistoric handball court the apes used. This was when Mad was funny much like SNL. They have both atrophied with age & neither are funny anymore

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:06pm

If you have only seen 2001 on TV, then you haven't seen it. 2001 should only be seen on a big screen. It is as simple as that. It also requires an attention span, one that can accommodate actually seeing a film from start to finish.

The film also requires that the audience (dare I say it?) THINK about the film as it unfolds.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:12pm

I agree it is a crashing bore! I hate it.

[Patronus]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:19pm

2001 is a great film, but I can also understand people not liking it. It isn't for everyone. A 2+ hour film with only 40 minutes or so of dialogue can be taxing, but it's one of my favorites.

I love the ape scene at the beginning. When the apes finally figure out that they can use the bones as weapons and he throws the bone up in the air and turns into the centrifuge we suddenly jump ahead millions of years. I thought it was a brilliant way to avoid the "1999" timestamp that most directors would use.

I find the film, as well as Arthur C. Clarke's book to be phenomenal.

I think it's brilliant how Kubrick used music in all of films. In 2001, the music was almost a supporting character.

Not only did it not win Best Picture, but it wasn't even nominated. The only Academy Award that 2001 won was visual effects. It was also nominated for Art Direction, Screenplay and Best Director. The thing that really annoys the hardcore 2001 fans is that it wasn't directed for Costumes. Sci-Fi geeks still comment on the fact that Planet of the Apes was nominated but 2001 wasn't despite the fact that the Ape costumes in 2001 were MUCH more realistic.

Updated On: 12/17/05 at 12:19 PM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:26pm

I agree with Patronus. I love the movie to death (Probably in my top 3 of all time) but I can see how people can be turned off by it.

However, to me, it makes full use of the cinema as Art. And it has the best cinematography I've ever seen in a movie despite being made without the use of computers.

[Patronus]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:41pm

I went through a phase around the time of Kubrick's death where I read several biographies and studied his work.

This is one of my favorite quotes of his regarding 2001:

"How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001."

[DG]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:42pm

All the naysaying in the world will never change the fact that, since the day it premiered, it has been one of the most discussed, analyzed and debated films (or work of art in any medium) in history. Who could ask for anything more from a work of creation?

And for the record, it has blown my mind on many occasions - and on many of those occasions my mind was blown

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 12:48pm

I don't care for the Mona Lisa, either. I don't give a sh*t why her ugly face is smiling. So, there you go. I can't think of a single Kubrick film that I like. He's just not my cup of tea, I suppose.

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 1:08pm

It's one of my favorites, but I don't blame others for hating it.

[DG]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 11:34am

This is from Roger Ebert's Ten Greatest Films of All Time list:

"Film can take us where we cannot go. It can also take our minds outside their shells, and this film by Stanley Kubrick is one of the great visionary experiences in the cinema. Yes, it was a landmark of special effects, so convincing that years later the astronauts, faced with the reality of outer space, compared it to "2001." But it was also a landmark of non-narrative, poetic filmmaking, in which the connections were made by images, not dialog or plot. n ape uses to learn a bone as a weapon, and this tool, flung into the air, transforms itself into a space ship--the tool that will free us from the bondage of this planet. And then the spaceship takes man on a voyage into the interior of what may be the mind of another species. The debates about the "meaning" of this film still go on. Surely the whole point of the film is that it is beyond meaning, that it takes its character to a place he is so incapable of understanding that a special room--sort of a hotel room--has to be prepared for him there, so that he will not go mad. The movie lyrically and brutally challenges us to break out of the illusion that everyday mundane concerns are what must preoccupy us. It argues that surely man did not learn to think and dream, only to deaden himself with provincialism and selfishness. "2001" is a spiritual experience. But then all good movies are."

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:10pm

It's been my experience that the majority of the people who say they "love" this film, have either never seen it or are afraid others will look down on them for not liking it.

I have no problems saying that it's one of, if not THE single most overrated film in history. And yes, I've had to watch it numerous times (on the big screen no less) and worked very hard to stay awake each and every time.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:50pm

What you said about that majority of people - they say they love a film they didn't even see? Or they are uncomfortable admitting they didn't like it? oy. I'm sorry for them in feeling so insecure!

[DG]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:47pm

"It's been my experience that the majority of the people who say they "love" this film, have either never seen it or are afraid others will look down on them for not liking it."

Certainly, if that's your experience . . . well, that's very sad. I can say that's far from my experience.

And while I can understand people not wanting to stand out because of their opinion (which happens in virtually every aspect of life,) I'm mystified by someone who would claim to see something they haven't. It would seem pretty obvious that the lie would easily be discovered. I guess I would question the type of person you're communicating with.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:06pm

I appreciate 2001: A Space Odyssey as a great cinematic achievement, but that doesn't mean that I love watching it. It's mind-boggling to me that such visual effects were created before man had even set foot on the moon. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the music perfectly utilized. I enjoyed the acting. The storyline, though quite slow-paced, is interesting and engaging. It is a great film that would have been disastrous under anyone other than Kubric's direction.

Would I jump at the opportunity to watch this every time that it happens to be on? Certainly not. Appreciation of the film as great doesn't translate to it being a favorite to watch. I did watch it recently after not having seen it for years, and I was wowed by it again.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:20pm

I believe it is not only one of the most overrated films of all time, but a major landmark of the period when visual effects began taking over movies, to the detriment of story and character ("Star Wars" was another major leap in this direction, but it is FAR more entertaining.) My attention span is just fine, thank you (I can sit, rapt with attention, through all eight hours of the "Ring" cycle any time you like) and I made it through "2001" with an effort, forcing my drooping eyelids up with my fingers.

I also know very well that this is one of the most discussed, overanalyzed films of all time. Perhaps that is because people have been trying to figure out what the hell is supposed to be going on in it since it was released. IT MAKES NO EFFING SENSE.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 3:28pm

I liked LOLITA better....it had Sue Lyon.
2001 did not.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 3:38pm

I saw it as part of a widescreen festival, in Bradford, England. It'ss certainly innovative (especially its special effects), it's just not entertaining, and it defines boring. One of the things I especially hate about it, is its music. Not a fan of films that don't use original scores.