Stanly Kubrick orgie!:)

huh?

so, what mah is saying....2001 is an adventure, a reel thrill ride of entertainment! And then I say stop this BS!

I don't remember Mah saying that. But we like what we like, and I find 2001 very entertaining indeed.

i think its interesting and mesmerizing.

2001 is depressing stuff

and boring!

It's not all substance, it's all style. And the very idea of doing a film like that is pretentious.

why? cuz it makes the viewer think? 🙄

No it isn't. It is a sad day for decent and imaginative filmaking if a quality piece like this can be called pretentious and to call it such leaves no word to deescribe the TRULY pretentious stuff out there.

Because it's avant garde bull. It doesn't make the veiwer think unless you are actually LOOKING for something.

Film an empty room and some "genius" well tell you it's about the meaning of life or soemething. Just because they want to appear smarter than everybody else.

There are plenty of films that make you think.

yes, and they arent pretentious. and neither is this one.

But 2001 does not compare to that example at all. It is an example of TRULY intelligent filmmaking. It is what you would compare the pretentious films to to shiow WHY they are pretentious in comparison.

I know exactly what you two are saying. You're trying to say that I don't like this film simply because it's "smart" and "intelligent".

I'm saying I don't like it because it's trying to be "smart" and "intelligent" and it just isn't.

It's a crap film. Simple as that.

Stop putting words in our mouths. In my opinion you don't like this film because you think that makes you seem better than people that do.

Well, it is NOT a crap film at all, it is a GREAT film, simple as THAT- and most people recognise it as such.

it is a smart film though.

Most people? Ha.

The people who like this film only like it because they think it makes them look smart.

Before you say you don't - Why else would you watch it?
Entertainment? One of my best friends is a MASSIVE Stanley Kubrick fan and even he wouldn't say it's entertaining.

You watch it so you can tell people about it.

I don't like it because it's rubbish and it's that simple.
It doesn't entertain me. It bores me.
It doesn't make me think because there is NOTHING in it to think about.

i find it very entertaining and intrigueing. thats why i watch it. and obviously he isnt a massive kubrick fan if he doesnt like this movie, which is probably kubricks most impressive and unique achievement.

No, I watch it because I ENJOY it, and I am sorry if that is so hard for you to understand but I do. And I do not tell others about it because it is impossible to get across without visual aid. I encourage them to watch it. I FIND IT ENTERTAINING. I cannot put it any more simply than that. And your comment that there is nothing in it to think about shows your flawed mentality here.

You think that as people think it is smart, but you have 'spotted' that it isn't, that makes you smarter than them. But that is just a flimsy covering for the fact that you do not like this film because you do not want to make any effort of understandiung the intelligence behind it.

I quote here from a criitc responsing to an allegation of pretension in tbe final sequences:

"This does not mean, however, that there is no meaning in this scene. It's just that one has to look deeper than what's on the surface and get a feel for the film in order to understand it. The way I see it, one has to feel frustrated during the extruciatingly slow scenes to be able to feel compelled enough to question the compressed time in the final scene.

2001 is by all means a product of the 1960's, but it is quality 60's art instead of that mystical twaddle. Inferior 60's shit was pretentious because it either had NO artistic meaning that could be discerned (aside from "Look what a trip drugs does to you, man..."😉 or it's meaning is so obvious that you could gag. This film finds its place right in between; it may not be easy, but if you try hard and lose yourself in Kubrickland, you may see (if ever so slightly) a statement, be it political, philosophical, theological, or otherwise.

For example, good 60's art is Antonioni's Blow Up, one of the most popular films of its time beside 2001. Sure it has meaning, but it takes a lot searching of not only the film, but yourself and your own society as well. His follow up, Zabriskie Point, is also a product of the 60's, but its stereotypes and "message" are so extreme that they are crude (as is the film)."

And meanwhile, Kubrick fans will argue until they day they die about which of his films are good and which not, because his reprtoire was very wide and it is impossible for them all to appeal to everyone.

anyone who puts down a kubrick movie cannot be called a true kubrick fan. they are all masterpieces, even barry lyndon which i dont enjoy watching, is a great masterpiece of its genre. a real kubrick fan will apreciate all of his work.

Mm no. You can like and dislike any Kubrick film and still be a fan. You dont have to like every single football team to be a football fan.