I once made a comment about 'The Catcher in The Rye' not actually being that good and pondered if it was one of those things where people are afraid to say so because everyone else seems to think that it's a classic. Turned out people were not afraid to say i was some sort of dullard.
I'm about to say the same thing about a film that i haven't deliberately gone out of my way to avoid but have heard constantly is the high water mark of sci-fi, so when i saw the DVD in a supermarket bargain basket for £1.99, i threw it into my trolley.
I'm not much of a fan of sci-fi movies anyway but i was willing to give 2001: A Space Odyssey a chance, especially as it had Stanley Kubrick's name on the credits and he generally turned out good, if eccentric, films.
The initial 'Dawn of Man' sequence i understand but it went on for far too long and that set the precedent for the rest of the film. Docking sequences and space walks that just dragged on forever and added nothing to the film except to make it twice as long as it could have been. It felt like a 90 minute film with a thin plot dragged and stretched out to fill 140 minutes.
The part of the film i had heard about most was the HAL computer killing the crew when faced with being disconnected. Loved that idea but by the time that event comes about, it is two thirds through the film and i was numbed by scenes of spaceships floating painfully slowly through space to loud classical music.
I can appreciate what Kubrick was trying to do, showing the vastness and emptiness of space but i just found it tedious and i rewound the ending twice and still didn't understand what went on at the end.
Maybe it was me, admittedly almost everyone else i spoke to about it today just told me i 'just didn't get it' and maybe that's the case but i wouldn't recommend it to anyone very highly. I'd give Catcher in The Rye a wide berth also. Neither of these classics live up to their hype.
6 comments:
I do believe that 2001 is a movie that had to be seen decades ago, it is a masterpiece, but it's also a product of its era. I don't think that the movie was made to stand the test of time, few, if any Sci-fi films are. It happens to be the nature of the beast.
p.s.
I happen to think that is is Arthur C. Clarke's masterpiece, with an assist by Kubrik
p.p.s you should also post this on Film Freaks
I tend to agree with Cody that 2001 can't be viewed except from the perspective of 1968.
As for Catcher in the Rye, it's one of those few books that made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Maybe it's because I read it when I was like 16 or 17, I don't know. I just didn't get it.
You obviously have a very short attention span, Lucy, which no doubt explains the superficiality of your comments on more important matters.
I did think that probably in 1968, before the moon landings, it would have had more impact and been more impressive, watching it for the first time in 2009, it just seemed laboured and so you are both probably right. Did love the HAL idea though.
Nothing to do with my attention span Stan, i just think Kubrick span it out.
a "dullard". I might label you, but i would never use "dullard" for you.
q
You label me????
I can handle dullard. There are worse things to be called.
Post a Comment