What's The Last Movie You Watched? XIII
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
- Status
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,858
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Kane52630
FOREVER⊙DILATING⊙EYE
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 124,230
- Reaction score
- 63,875
- Points
- 218
It's actually not bad, it's a bit slow but Chris Evans did a fantastic job.
Metallo
Evil Dead Re-Animator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 11,908
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
2001: A Space Odyssey
9.5/10
A masterpiece. Not just about the physical journey through space but mans physical and philosophical journey through time, space, and his own existence. At its core the film is about evolution but it leaves us with a lot of questions...which is the point. It sparks discussion. I think Stanley Kubrick knew no film can beat the human imagination when its really firing on all cylinders.
The opening is great because the story is told SO well with just the images. There is no dialogue. When the primitive ape like creatures touch the monolith they undergo some kind of change and thats plain to see. I thought the physical acting/mime work was a well done kind of performance art by the actors in the ape suits.
We then jump ahead a few millennia. When an alien object is discovered on the moon a secret mission is initiated and a ship, The Discovery, is launched toward Jupiter.
Even if we were looking at this film from a technical standpoint its still a marvel. Its almost 45 years later and I still can't figure how some of its technical aspects were achieved. The film still holds up pretty well visually. Its prediction of the future got a lot of things wrong but much like Star Trek its surprising how many things it also got right.
Also like Star Trek it was one of those early productions that got away from the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers/Lost In Space looks for the future and went for something that looked like an evolution of NASA's actual design style for its equipment at the time. That's probably one reason it seems so natural. The ships and space suits have all this detail on them that makes it all look sleek but high tech.
I love how space travel is so routine in the film but its presented with such grandeur by Kubrick. Heywood Floyd SLEEPS during his journey to the lunar base when I'd have my face pressed against the window gawking. That's another thing that makes this "future" feel natural. There is something almost operatic about the space travel. That's why the classical music works. There's a smoothness and flow to it all that is awe inspiring.
Seems like there are other things Kubrick is trying too say. Most of the humans seem so subdued. Bowman and Poole couldn't be more laid back for most of their parts of the film unless they took some sleeping pills. Its like we've become complacent in this current world and our lives so its time for another step in our evolution to shake things up and give us new challenges to face in the grander scheme of things.
Everybody's always messing around with something technological and we don't really see much emotionally or spiritually from anyone. The computer HAL shows more anticipation, enthusiasm, and naïveté and new things at times.
Douglas Rain does his bit to give us a very fascinating character in HAL. He's a computer so he can't be TOO human like but we see that A.I.'s are this close to being like us in the movie. Early on you wonder if the limited emotion HAL shows is real or just part of his programed interaction with people. As the film goes on he begins to seem even more human and its not the best of us we see in him. By the end you do feel sorry for him even if its just a little.
Its pretty cool that Gary Lockwood can say he was at the ground level for two of the most influential science fiction projects to come out of the 60's. Even though his part is one of the larger ones in the film he doesn't get much to do. But what happens to him is a vital part of the story.
Keir Dellea has the bigger part of the two leads and he is great. By the end Dave Bowman is our eyes and ears as we take the ultimate journey into the unknown. I remember the first time I saw the movie I felt a lot of nervous anticipation over what the hell was happening to Bowman. Its a little unsettling but so fascinating to think about that you can't help but be glued to what you see. I always wondered why he and Lockwood didn't go on to bigger things. They're good actors and I'm impressed with anybody who is working with material this complex. Even if they didn't understand it they did their jobs well.
So much of the film's message is up to personal interpretation but the fact that each persons interpretation can be so complex shows how well Kubrick's idea works. Each person can see something profound and profoundly different but no interpretation is more or less right or wrong than another.
2010: The Year We Make Contact
7.5/10
Its no 2001 and I think a lot of its fans were disappointed by that. I was to too some extent but I think it would have been a mistake (and insane) for someone else to out Kubrick Kubrick. Only way that could have worked is if Stanley Kubrick had directed the film himself and I doubt he had much interest in doing that. He (mostly) said what he wanted to in 2001.
Nine years after the events of 2001 a joint American - Russian mission is sent to Jupiter to study strange goings on and learn more what happened to the Discovery and her crew.
2010 tries to be its own kind of film telling its own kind of story its own way. Its connected to 2001 but it has its own identity too. It has a little more heart and emotion than 2001 and the people feel a little more natural. I think Peter Hyams could have held back a LITTLE BIT as far as explaining some things in 2001 and spelling it out for us but overall I wasn't too bothered.
I can see why he recast Heywood Floyd and replaced William Sylvester with Roy Scheider. Sylvester was good for his small part in 2001 but with the kind of film Peter Hyams was trying to make and Floyd's expanded role he needed an actor who could convey more emotion and who we could emotionally invest in. I was fine with that. The cast is sporting some fine actors. Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, etc. No problem there.
Its great that they got Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain back and I think they were used properly. Overuse them and it makes their appearance less special. It also would have taken away some of the mystery surrounding both characters when the movie starts. Dullea aged pretty well in the decade and a half between films so when we see him he doesn't look too out of place.
The films story is more straight forward and traditionally explored. It has its philosophy but its not nearly as opaque as in 2001 and Hyams does more to explain whats going on in his film and what the meaning of it all is. He doesn't go TOO far because there are still a lot of questions.
2010 was released in 1984 so the special effects aren't AS groundbreaking but they are still very impressive for the time. There is some great model work and the same basis of realism has been carried over from 2001 even if much of it is stylistically different. The new sets and the recreated sets from the Discovery all look fantastic. The model work is good and the space shots look convincing enough. The large monolith near Jupiter evokes a lot of apprehension, caution, nervousness, etc.
The film is more optimistic at the end than 2001. 2001 has an optimism but its very different because its look forward for mankind is less typical than what we see in Hollywood and more high concept. 2010 ends with hope for mankind's immediate future instead of the far flung one. That sums up the whole film really. The film is more focused on the "now" than the "eternal"
2010 is no philosophical mind/space trip like 2001 ends up being but for a space adventure film its pretty enjoyable.
9.5/10
A masterpiece. Not just about the physical journey through space but mans physical and philosophical journey through time, space, and his own existence. At its core the film is about evolution but it leaves us with a lot of questions...which is the point. It sparks discussion. I think Stanley Kubrick knew no film can beat the human imagination when its really firing on all cylinders.
The opening is great because the story is told SO well with just the images. There is no dialogue. When the primitive ape like creatures touch the monolith they undergo some kind of change and thats plain to see. I thought the physical acting/mime work was a well done kind of performance art by the actors in the ape suits.
We then jump ahead a few millennia. When an alien object is discovered on the moon a secret mission is initiated and a ship, The Discovery, is launched toward Jupiter.
Even if we were looking at this film from a technical standpoint its still a marvel. Its almost 45 years later and I still can't figure how some of its technical aspects were achieved. The film still holds up pretty well visually. Its prediction of the future got a lot of things wrong but much like Star Trek its surprising how many things it also got right.
Also like Star Trek it was one of those early productions that got away from the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers/Lost In Space looks for the future and went for something that looked like an evolution of NASA's actual design style for its equipment at the time. That's probably one reason it seems so natural. The ships and space suits have all this detail on them that makes it all look sleek but high tech.
I love how space travel is so routine in the film but its presented with such grandeur by Kubrick. Heywood Floyd SLEEPS during his journey to the lunar base when I'd have my face pressed against the window gawking. That's another thing that makes this "future" feel natural. There is something almost operatic about the space travel. That's why the classical music works. There's a smoothness and flow to it all that is awe inspiring.
Seems like there are other things Kubrick is trying too say. Most of the humans seem so subdued. Bowman and Poole couldn't be more laid back for most of their parts of the film unless they took some sleeping pills. Its like we've become complacent in this current world and our lives so its time for another step in our evolution to shake things up and give us new challenges to face in the grander scheme of things.
Everybody's always messing around with something technological and we don't really see much emotionally or spiritually from anyone. The computer HAL shows more anticipation, enthusiasm, and naïveté and new things at times.
Douglas Rain does his bit to give us a very fascinating character in HAL. He's a computer so he can't be TOO human like but we see that A.I.'s are this close to being like us in the movie. Early on you wonder if the limited emotion HAL shows is real or just part of his programed interaction with people. As the film goes on he begins to seem even more human and its not the best of us we see in him. By the end you do feel sorry for him even if its just a little.
Its pretty cool that Gary Lockwood can say he was at the ground level for two of the most influential science fiction projects to come out of the 60's. Even though his part is one of the larger ones in the film he doesn't get much to do. But what happens to him is a vital part of the story.
Keir Dellea has the bigger part of the two leads and he is great. By the end Dave Bowman is our eyes and ears as we take the ultimate journey into the unknown. I remember the first time I saw the movie I felt a lot of nervous anticipation over what the hell was happening to Bowman. Its a little unsettling but so fascinating to think about that you can't help but be glued to what you see. I always wondered why he and Lockwood didn't go on to bigger things. They're good actors and I'm impressed with anybody who is working with material this complex. Even if they didn't understand it they did their jobs well.
So much of the film's message is up to personal interpretation but the fact that each persons interpretation can be so complex shows how well Kubrick's idea works. Each person can see something profound and profoundly different but no interpretation is more or less right or wrong than another.
2010: The Year We Make Contact
7.5/10
Its no 2001 and I think a lot of its fans were disappointed by that. I was to too some extent but I think it would have been a mistake (and insane) for someone else to out Kubrick Kubrick. Only way that could have worked is if Stanley Kubrick had directed the film himself and I doubt he had much interest in doing that. He (mostly) said what he wanted to in 2001.
Nine years after the events of 2001 a joint American - Russian mission is sent to Jupiter to study strange goings on and learn more what happened to the Discovery and her crew.
2010 tries to be its own kind of film telling its own kind of story its own way. Its connected to 2001 but it has its own identity too. It has a little more heart and emotion than 2001 and the people feel a little more natural. I think Peter Hyams could have held back a LITTLE BIT as far as explaining some things in 2001 and spelling it out for us but overall I wasn't too bothered.
I can see why he recast Heywood Floyd and replaced William Sylvester with Roy Scheider. Sylvester was good for his small part in 2001 but with the kind of film Peter Hyams was trying to make and Floyd's expanded role he needed an actor who could convey more emotion and who we could emotionally invest in. I was fine with that. The cast is sporting some fine actors. Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, etc. No problem there.
Its great that they got Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain back and I think they were used properly. Overuse them and it makes their appearance less special. It also would have taken away some of the mystery surrounding both characters when the movie starts. Dullea aged pretty well in the decade and a half between films so when we see him he doesn't look too out of place.
The films story is more straight forward and traditionally explored. It has its philosophy but its not nearly as opaque as in 2001 and Hyams does more to explain whats going on in his film and what the meaning of it all is. He doesn't go TOO far because there are still a lot of questions.
2010 was released in 1984 so the special effects aren't AS groundbreaking but they are still very impressive for the time. There is some great model work and the same basis of realism has been carried over from 2001 even if much of it is stylistically different. The new sets and the recreated sets from the Discovery all look fantastic. The model work is good and the space shots look convincing enough. The large monolith near Jupiter evokes a lot of apprehension, caution, nervousness, etc.
The film is more optimistic at the end than 2001. 2001 has an optimism but its very different because its look forward for mankind is less typical than what we see in Hollywood and more high concept. 2010 ends with hope for mankind's immediate future instead of the far flung one. That sums up the whole film really. The film is more focused on the "now" than the "eternal"
2010 is no philosophical mind/space trip like 2001 ends up being but for a space adventure film its pretty enjoyable.
Last edited:
Punisher Rising
Mechanical Psychopath
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,731
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
9/10
mongoose-mania
Gentleman
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Dracula AD 1972
Blitzkrieg Bop
Fight Owens Fight
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,434
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 73
I can't believe they made the best looking Gillman ever and hardly used him.
9/10
CapedCrusader14
...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,154
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Real Steel: 3/5
Nothing too special, just a lighthearted film with fighting robots.
Nothing too special, just a lighthearted film with fighting robots.
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,858
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
SuperSoldier985
That's Funny
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,246
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I Know What You Did Last Summer
Tron Bonne
All Ass, No Sass
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 33,289
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Haywire
Darkness Falls
We Could Be Heroes.....
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,491
- Reaction score
- 86
- Points
- 73
The Hangover II
- not as good as the first one but still funny and enjoyable 7/10
- not as good as the first one but still funny and enjoyable 7/10
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
Lily Adler🔥 Hot Scoops 🍨
