1968
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
So since we warmed up with a nice dull Bergman film for the last entry, why don't we tackle the epitome of boring films: 2001: A Space Odyssey? Don't worry, there is another Bergman after this that we can use as a cool down.
In the history of uninteresting movies, this one might have the most promising beginning. The opening scene is so iconic that it should be the one scene you don't fast forward through. The 140+ minute film centers on a manned expedition that is slowly derailed by the spaceship's unbalanced computer named HAL.
I feel like the concept of a computer becoming dangerous has the potential to be a mediocre sci fi film. However, that is not the direction Kubrick takes with it so it is simply a terrible and pretentious horror. I am not referring to the horror genre here; I am referring to what I felt every time I would glance at the screen.
Some people, of course, think this is a masterpiece and I can see where they are coming from (most likely a very high horse). Cinematically, it is quite beautiful. But honestly, I am more of a story person. And less of a no compelling story at all person.
Blah.
RATING: **---
Interesting Facts:
241 people walked out of one of the first screenings.
There is 24 minutes of footage before there is any dialogue in the film.
Trailer:
I like this film, but don't love it. I do respect it because Kubrick is one of those filmmakers who always did his own thing. This film is a visionary wonder in places, and in some ways was ahead of its time. I do, however, feel the film is a bit too long and uneven in places. I can actually find the arguments for and against this film equally compelling. I am actually in the middle on this one.
ReplyDeleteI saw this only a few years after it came out in a (then) state of the art cinema - ie it had a wide screen and stereo sound and remember being impressed.. and no i wasn't on anything (well, in retrospect, maybe unintentionally by breathing in the smoke of others)
ReplyDeleteSince then.. I've seen bits fairly frequently, but never manager to watch the whole thing, in one go, without ff ing trough all the trippy bits.
I'm mostly with Larry on this one.. I (sort of) like it, and believe it is very deserving of it's place in the book...far ahead of it's time... but oh boy.. is it LONG - and .. pause... ok Amanda, you have a point.. boring.. in places. I decidedly said "in places". (and that come from someone who can happily cope with long slow films)
But you have never been happy with Kubrick anyway have you?
I actually did really like The Shining! So one day I will like him! But I agree Larry, this movie is super uneven.
ReplyDeleteI saw this when it was first out in the theatre and being young, didn't understand any of it. Tried to watch it again years later and realized that I still didn't get it, didn't like it and it was way too long. Young me knew what I liked, I guess. I think way over-hyped.
ReplyDelete2001: A Space Odyssey is not a movie, it is an experience, like a state of mind. It is something I would get drawn into, look at, experience, but not follow as a progressing story as in other movies. From that point of view it is a master piece and one I both respect and enjoy.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah, I am on a very high horse.
It is an experience. Like going to the dentist or having one's prostate examined.
DeleteAmanda.... errrrr.... are you going to tell us about your last prostate examination?
DeleteMaybe there's truth in what T says about it being an experience. It depends how you define a movie, I suppose. But, especially in the science fiction genre, you kind of expect something plot driven and an ending which addresses and hopefully satisfies the desire to see good guys win out over bad guys. I long ago found peace with the idea of ambiguous endings but would have preferred something a little more defined here. I read Kubrick's words on what he intended:
ReplyDelete"The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by godlike entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. ... [W]hen they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made some kind of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest."
Really? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think that came across at all, or even that it would have fitted well if it did.
Maybe 5-10 minutes could have been trimmed from some of the longer sequences, but I don't think there was another half hour which should have been hacked off or anything like that.
Apes at the beginning were, by a long way, the best example of humans in costumes playing that role. But, hey, it's still people in costumes! It just felt odd. At the opposite end of the the film and time itself, the visual effects of the arrival to Jupiter must have been astonishing in 1968 and are truly an achievement. But they do look a little dated in 2021.
Still, I liked it, it's had a big effect on me and I'd probably give it five stars if I were in this for the ratings.
What's the film where the guy wears white, has a white beard and becomes a total germaphobe? The Simpsons parodied it with Mr Burns in the role. I always thought it was the final sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey and kept waiting for it to pop up, but it never did.
ReplyDeleteUm. LOTR?
DeleteNo, but I think I'm going to like your answer more than the correct one
DeleteThe Aviator I believe ... Leonardo D C as Howard Hughes...
ReplyDeleteI was thinking "No, no, no, that's not right". But, looking it up, it appears that you've got it.
DeleteDessie .. Well .. just because 'The Aviator' has those features, it doesn't mean you don't have another film in mind that also fits the given criteria.
ReplyDeleteThat said, when I saw Mr. Burns go all reclusive and (I seem to remember), also collected his own Urine, I assumed they were referencing not just Hughes, but the film.
To be clear, I haven't seen The Aviator, know very little about Howard Hughes and hadn't seen 2001 until three days ago. You are an oracle of wisdom by comparison and I defer to your judgement entirely.
Delete