JonathanLB
Mar 9th, 2003, 03:53:39 AM
Well I rewatched this movie today, as part of my attempts to finish the AFI list and as I have mentioned, I never review a film without seeing it closely beforehand, even if I at one earlier point saw it (this even applies to Star Wars, which I have seen more than 75 times!).
Anyway, I saw it for the first time perhaps 4 years ago, 5 years ago? When I was 15 or 16, and I remember railing against it on this very forum. There were some heated arguments I had with Palpatine (the poster here) about it.
First, let me say I still don't think it is the greatest sci-fi film ever (Star Wars, Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, so many great ones...).
HOWEVER, the 2.5 star rating I gave it before was BS. I'm not sure what I was smoking then or whatever. I must have been too immature at the time to appreciate it. I just don't think my film tastes had quite expanded to the level they are today, where I appreciate films from all cultures and eras and genres with a lot more open-mindedness (if that's a phrase I can use) than before.
Anyway, I would re-rate it four stars. I think 2001 is one of the great sci-fi films and expertly crafted. I have come to appreciate Kubrick's other work since the time I saw this, too. At that time 2001 was his first film I had seen. Now, I've seen Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, at least, both of which I love. They are two of my favorite films, actually, of their respective genres. A Clockwork Orange is twisted, but brilliant, I think. Dr. Strangelove is right there with M*A*S*H as one of the greatest subversive, dark comedies ever made. Genius work.
2001 is visually splendid, not as boring as I remember and I'm not sure why I said that before. I don't find it boring now. I was wrong, I think. It's not "exciting," but it's artistic and brilliantly crafted. The cinematography of HAL is just eerie, how you commonly see this one red "eye" (if you will) peering out at you. The dialogue, while there is not much of it (about 40 mins. in the film), is actually great, but especially HAL's. I loved HAL when I first saw the film; I still love HAL.
Now I must say, maybe I just am not thinking enough about it, or maybe it is as many people say, open to endless interpretation, but I do not understand the final part, or act. It is visually magnificent and ponderous, and I think I might have an inkling, kind of, for what it is getting at, but I don't claim to understand it. I thought it was saying something about the cycle of life, how you see Dave (apparently?) as an older man, then on his death bed, then you see this baby. I thought that was maybe indicating the cycle of life, but I could be wrong. I wasn't sure what to make of it. I'd love to hear other interpretations of this ending in general because I must say I'm perplexed.
I don't want to pompously say the ending is a "weakness" of the movie, but IMO it tries too hard to be profound and is overly artistic, though I won't fault the movie for this. Kubrick is a thoughtful director. He liked to make movies to make his audiences think, but in this case I might argue that as much thinking as you can do, you're still not going to get a lot out of that ending. Feel free to disagree, and maybe when I read more about it I will, again, change my mind and appreciate it more. Right now I'm not there yet.
Anyway, opinions welcome, whether you dislike the film, like it, love it, etc. I've been in both groups now ;)
I didn't want to see this movie the 2nd time with a bias. In other words, I didn't want to see it like, "Ok I know this movie isn't very good because I saw it before," but rather I tried to wipe the slate clean and think of it as a film I hadn't truly seen because last time I saw it, I was not the same person (my film tastes were just vastly different, that's all). Also I didn't want to go into it the second time thinking, "Well now that I'm a critic and it's an AFI Top 100 film, I must give it a great review." Nah, that's even worse. I honestly really like this movie after seeing it again and have before changed my mind about films, though usually only from one rating to a higher rating (I've rarely thought a movie was good and then decided it was bad; however, I liked Armaggedon in theaters, then when I saw it on video I thought it was the stupidest pile of dunk imaginable and was embarrassed for liking it before...).
I also argued before that 2001 had very little influence on Star Wars. I think that is an idiotic statement, too. It's relatively clear from watching the film that Lucas was greatly influenced by the movie. The landing bay early in the space sequence before the Jupiter mission looks exactly like a landing bay on the Death Star. The Aries spacecraft (lunar landing module) looks from the back like the escape pod that R2-D2 and C-3PO jettison from the Tantive IV early in ANH. There are probably other similarities I missed, but it seems clear to me that a film like 2001 also helped pave the way for Star Wars perhaps to a similar extent as The Searchers, Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, Metropolis, or what have you.
Edit:
Oh yes, in my defense, the critics of 1968 also thought 2001 was boring and didn't understand it. So perhaps it is just fair to say that many people needed two viewings or more before really appreciating it. Sometimes, this happens. I've seen movies before where the first viewing couldn't possibly do the film justice and it was not a fault of the film or director, but rather just a result of the experimental, unconventional nature of the film. (I watched 13 Conversations About One Thing twice in two days because the first time I honestly couldn't say I fully understood it and I felt that it did deserve my attention a second time; on my second viewing, I raised my rating 1/2 star to 3.5 and it is a very philosophical movie that I'm glad I saw twice).
Anyway, I saw it for the first time perhaps 4 years ago, 5 years ago? When I was 15 or 16, and I remember railing against it on this very forum. There were some heated arguments I had with Palpatine (the poster here) about it.
First, let me say I still don't think it is the greatest sci-fi film ever (Star Wars, Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, so many great ones...).
HOWEVER, the 2.5 star rating I gave it before was BS. I'm not sure what I was smoking then or whatever. I must have been too immature at the time to appreciate it. I just don't think my film tastes had quite expanded to the level they are today, where I appreciate films from all cultures and eras and genres with a lot more open-mindedness (if that's a phrase I can use) than before.
Anyway, I would re-rate it four stars. I think 2001 is one of the great sci-fi films and expertly crafted. I have come to appreciate Kubrick's other work since the time I saw this, too. At that time 2001 was his first film I had seen. Now, I've seen Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, at least, both of which I love. They are two of my favorite films, actually, of their respective genres. A Clockwork Orange is twisted, but brilliant, I think. Dr. Strangelove is right there with M*A*S*H as one of the greatest subversive, dark comedies ever made. Genius work.
2001 is visually splendid, not as boring as I remember and I'm not sure why I said that before. I don't find it boring now. I was wrong, I think. It's not "exciting," but it's artistic and brilliantly crafted. The cinematography of HAL is just eerie, how you commonly see this one red "eye" (if you will) peering out at you. The dialogue, while there is not much of it (about 40 mins. in the film), is actually great, but especially HAL's. I loved HAL when I first saw the film; I still love HAL.
Now I must say, maybe I just am not thinking enough about it, or maybe it is as many people say, open to endless interpretation, but I do not understand the final part, or act. It is visually magnificent and ponderous, and I think I might have an inkling, kind of, for what it is getting at, but I don't claim to understand it. I thought it was saying something about the cycle of life, how you see Dave (apparently?) as an older man, then on his death bed, then you see this baby. I thought that was maybe indicating the cycle of life, but I could be wrong. I wasn't sure what to make of it. I'd love to hear other interpretations of this ending in general because I must say I'm perplexed.
I don't want to pompously say the ending is a "weakness" of the movie, but IMO it tries too hard to be profound and is overly artistic, though I won't fault the movie for this. Kubrick is a thoughtful director. He liked to make movies to make his audiences think, but in this case I might argue that as much thinking as you can do, you're still not going to get a lot out of that ending. Feel free to disagree, and maybe when I read more about it I will, again, change my mind and appreciate it more. Right now I'm not there yet.
Anyway, opinions welcome, whether you dislike the film, like it, love it, etc. I've been in both groups now ;)
I didn't want to see this movie the 2nd time with a bias. In other words, I didn't want to see it like, "Ok I know this movie isn't very good because I saw it before," but rather I tried to wipe the slate clean and think of it as a film I hadn't truly seen because last time I saw it, I was not the same person (my film tastes were just vastly different, that's all). Also I didn't want to go into it the second time thinking, "Well now that I'm a critic and it's an AFI Top 100 film, I must give it a great review." Nah, that's even worse. I honestly really like this movie after seeing it again and have before changed my mind about films, though usually only from one rating to a higher rating (I've rarely thought a movie was good and then decided it was bad; however, I liked Armaggedon in theaters, then when I saw it on video I thought it was the stupidest pile of dunk imaginable and was embarrassed for liking it before...).
I also argued before that 2001 had very little influence on Star Wars. I think that is an idiotic statement, too. It's relatively clear from watching the film that Lucas was greatly influenced by the movie. The landing bay early in the space sequence before the Jupiter mission looks exactly like a landing bay on the Death Star. The Aries spacecraft (lunar landing module) looks from the back like the escape pod that R2-D2 and C-3PO jettison from the Tantive IV early in ANH. There are probably other similarities I missed, but it seems clear to me that a film like 2001 also helped pave the way for Star Wars perhaps to a similar extent as The Searchers, Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, Metropolis, or what have you.
Edit:
Oh yes, in my defense, the critics of 1968 also thought 2001 was boring and didn't understand it. So perhaps it is just fair to say that many people needed two viewings or more before really appreciating it. Sometimes, this happens. I've seen movies before where the first viewing couldn't possibly do the film justice and it was not a fault of the film or director, but rather just a result of the experimental, unconventional nature of the film. (I watched 13 Conversations About One Thing twice in two days because the first time I honestly couldn't say I fully understood it and I felt that it did deserve my attention a second time; on my second viewing, I raised my rating 1/2 star to 3.5 and it is a very philosophical movie that I'm glad I saw twice).