Well, it is NOT a crap film at all, it is a GREAT film, simple as THAT- and most people recognise it as such.that is your opinion Ush and most people? out of my close acquaintances none of them recognise this as a great film. They look at the story of it and found it to be crap. Most people dont go beyond how a film is made they look to the story and if that aint good enough they will think the movie is crap. I found it to be really boring but then again I read the book before I saw the film and I never liked the book either.
The special effects were shockingly good and there has been nothing as directly realistic since. They were even UPSET they had to add the stars in to please people!
It WAS a slow film, and boring would be a relevant criticism of it. I am not sure about stupid... I would say obscure.
But no, not pretentious. It doesn't qualify for that.
Oh the books... well, certainly I have never seen anyone get away with books with so little happening in them. The third one really WAS dull- you will note that no-one will even try and make a film about that.
In fact, compare the film 2010 to 2001. Except for the continuity (like the sets) and the quality performance by two of the leads from the original, that was rubbish... now, 2001 COULD have been like that if it was just a straight adaption. I take that as a good indication of Kubrick's skill.
Who on EARTH thought the voiceover in 2010 was a good idea... (shakes head sorrowfully)