|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 20, 2021 4:01:03 GMT
As much of an innovative marvel as it is, it’s also an undeniably slow movie where not a lot happens. Does that make it boring?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 20, 2021 4:11:59 GMT
I dont think slow paced movies are boring simply based on that...but i did find 2001 to be a boring film.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Feb 20, 2021 4:28:23 GMT
I consider a movie boring if it has a hard time keeping my attention. But I can still follow a movie, and even find it entertaining, if it's slow-paced or not much happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Feb 20, 2021 4:31:03 GMT
I never lost interest but neither did I find myself intrigued. And even when all the Nietzschean stuff is comprehended, there's not that much to it.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 4:34:33 GMT
No. 2001 is one of the most immersive movies ever made.
Slow-moving doesn't equal boring.
There are fast paced movies that are boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Feb 20, 2021 4:37:35 GMT
Not really. It's slow yes, but it's a technical and visual marvel.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 4:43:58 GMT
Not really. It's slow yes, but it's a technical and visual marvel. You have a point. If someone isn't interested in cinematography, art direction, poetic movement and music use then they will probably be bored by 2001: A Space Odyssey. The subject matter is fascinating, but it is the visual presentation that makes the movie a masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Feb 20, 2021 4:46:32 GMT
I agree with what moviemouth and jamesbamesy said.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Feb 20, 2021 5:03:20 GMT
I did when I was 14 but I've grown to like it more over time. The book makes more sense when it comes to the final part of the story because it spells it out rather than making you guess by looking at what's going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 5:07:07 GMT
These 2 paragraphs echo my thoughts about the movie in a more precise way then I could do and also points out information I wasn't aware of. Movies about the nature of existence, particularly having to do with human consciousness is something that interests me to no end. Here is the entire article - www.reverseshot.org/symposiums/entry/2013/space_odysseyScience, art, and the spiritual have been linked for centuries across pictorial traditions, but they achieve a unique synthesis in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, an audaciously cerebral epic that, whenever seen or contemplated in its original 70mm format, never feels like anything less than a miracle of human imagination. The relevance of 2001 has kept pace with the times, too, as it coolly examines our relationship with technology and the grand mystery of cosmic reality, which grows richer and stranger the more we learn about the physics of massive phenomena we cannot directly observe (dark matter, black holes) and the even spookier action of quantum-scale particles. Grappling seriously with our place in the universe as individuals and as a species, 2001 was the first modern sci-fi movie; mature, intelligent, technically precise, and ambiguously metaphysical, the film mostly dispenses with conventional narrative in order to represent, for much of its 160-minute duration, the physical and psychological experience of “being in space.” More importantly, by coding his unusually realistic visual journey with mythic totems and baffling set pieces, Kubrick heightens the subjective experience of viewers, leaving the logic of the whole intentionally fuzzy and open to innumerable readings. Forty-seven years after its debut, 2001: A Space Odyssey continues to fascinate audiences, influencing filmmakers as artistically dissimilar as George Lucas, Alfonso Cuarón, and Christopher Nolan, and casting a long, monolithic shadow over any filmic depiction of interstellar space, all without losing its seemingly timeless mystique.Leaving aside the enormously complex technical accomplishments of the film in the pre-computer age, which are well documented in books by Jerome Agel, Piers Bizony, and others, there is more to the story of 2001’s enduring appeal. The world Kubrick brings to life is not “the future.” Nor is it a place of love or striving, or a celebration of mammalian rationality and Apollo-era ingenuity, though it does hold the grace and beauty of aeronautic design in high regard. On one level, the film dramatizes the limits of our know-how and intelligence, and quite radically questions whether intelligence itself is uniquely human. A famous cut—the tapir bone thrown skyward by a Dawn of Man hominid, matched to a flying spacecraft in the film’s “present”—and the uncannily poignant dying vocalizations of a malignant HAL 9000 computer are two expressions of this theme. Yet 2001 is also an origin myth, an alternate history of the universe in which notions of evolution (Schelling’s idealism as much as Darwin’s biological materialism) are jumbled with extraterrestrial sentience, hippie-friendly astrological mysticism, and contemporary theories on the multi-dimensionality of space and time. Scientific thinking informs the production design and ambience of 2001, while a few inspired figurations of the Absolute—a consciousness-raising monolith, a death/birth wormhole passage, a Star Child incubating in a space bubble “beyond the infinite”— are wedded to elements of pure science fantasy. The power of mixing myth and empirical science in this way was essential to Kubrick’s enterprise. An avid reader of hard science and science fiction (as well as Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces, which he asked co-writer Arthur C. Clarke to absorb), he aimed to connect audiences with realities that exist on a scale far vaster than we can comprehend. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Feb 20, 2021 5:12:14 GMT
I have seen it many times. It is one of the all-time greats. Not one second is boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Feb 20, 2021 5:20:41 GMT
As much of an innovative marvel as it is, it’s also an undeniably slow movie where not a lot happens. Does that make it boring? I found it electrifying from start to finish. In fact, I normally find it goes by far too quickly for my personal taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 20, 2021 5:38:43 GMT
I was probably bored when I was around 13 trying to watch it, yet that's part of the journey towards re-watch immersion.
When I was that age, I'm sure walking around an art gallery was boring to me. Of course within a few years, not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 20, 2021 6:13:18 GMT
Yeah it's pretty boring at times.
The characters are boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Feb 20, 2021 8:41:54 GMT
Basically yes. 2001 is a film I never liked or understood the praise for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Feb 20, 2021 8:47:44 GMT
Slow, but not boring.
In fact, it’s so ridiculously immersive, I find it hard to watch. Too much to handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgmarshall on Feb 20, 2021 8:53:27 GMT
No, it really sucks me in every time. Now, I do need to be in the mood for watching it, but I could say that about a lot of movies I love. I mean, my all time favorite runs close to four hours, so it's another I have to prepare to sit down and watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Feb 20, 2021 9:10:34 GMT
It's endlessly fascinating.
It's a masterpiece of cinema.
You want boring? Watch most of those superhero movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Feb 20, 2021 9:10:52 GMT
The opening is superb and the visuals and effects are breathtaking considering the year in which the movie was produced. It is very slow, however, and I'd by lying if I said I didn't find it a tad boring. Partly that has to do with not finding the characters all that interesting or relatable. On the other hand, I'm a massive fan of Star Trek: The Motion Picture - a movie clearly heavily inspired by 2001 and which mimics it to a certain extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Feb 20, 2021 9:36:58 GMT
Yea, it's a painfully dull, pretentious, self-indulgent garbage. It's one of the worst movies ever made. It's about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
|
|
