A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
One of my favorites, though it lost some of its charm when everybody started liking it.PurpleMustReign wrote:Have you all seen Office Space? That is the most unheralded movie of all time, IMO. But it is so freakin funny...
"PC Load Letter, what the fu*k does that mean??"
It is undeniably a work of art. I do not think there is much dissension on that point. However, there are works of art that are plodding, dull or overblown in every artistic medium. Wagner comes to mind, as does some Mahler. Most anything by Milton. Anybody who says Proust is compelling is probably lying.DanAS1 wrote:Wang,
I'd like to answer your question, but it's hard because I can't get past the first discussion. 2001 is one of my favorite movies. I love it on so many levels. The main character is Hal, of course, but the key isn't any one character. It's the trajectory from (a) the ape (proto-man in his ghastly natural state), (b) Haywood Floyd et al. (modern man, repressed, willing to lie, seemingly a creature of his job, but under the surface we know that there is still that ape), to (c) Hal (a sort of Ubermench, part-man, part machine, accomplished beyond our wildest imagination ... and yet now we see the "ape" under the surface in terms of his willingness to kill and his whimpering state when he learns that he is being killed). Dave, the survivor, is really just a vehicle to point us to the next stage after we have resolved all our issues with repression ... which, of course, is the unknown.
Kubrick is a master at showing that (a) what seems to be so modern, so controlled, and so scientific (picture "the treatment" from A Clockwork Orange) is itself just a repressed form of man's selfish, animalistic nature, and (b) the only proper way to deal with it is to LAUGH YOUR F-ING #### OFF. When Hal sings daisy, it's really a joke ... just like when Little Alex tries, but could not snuff it, because if he had snuffed it, "he wouldn't be around to tell this tale."
2001 has amazing visuals. 2001 has amazing music. 2001 reflects a subtle and interesting philosophy. 2001 has multiple amazing scenes (the Ape scene, the Final scene). And Hal, in some respects, is one of the great characters in movie history. Just ask Anthony Hopkins, who patterned Hannibal Lecter (sp?) on him/it.
Is 2001 my favorite Kubrick movie? No. I give the nod to A Clockwork Orange. But I would be hard to name ten movies that I like as much as 2001, and every time I see it, I marvel at the accomplishment of making that movie.
That said, I once fell asleep watching it. So I know what you're saying, but some movies are best watched more than once.
I can't tell if your implying that 2001 is plodding, dull or overblown or simply saying that just because it is art doesn't mean it isn't plodding, dull or overblown. I certainly agree with the latter point, but hardly the former.BGM wrote:
It is undeniably a work of art. I do not think there is much dissension on that point. However, there are works of art that are plodding, dull or overblown in every artistic medium. Wagner comes to mind, as does some Mahler. Most anything by Milton. Anybody who says Proust is compelling is probably lying.
As for the music, as you probably know, the soundtrack that ended up with the movie was the working track that Kubrick used while editing the film. The music that was composed for the film by Alex North, but discarded by Kubrick, was released on the Varese Sarabande label n 1993, and is quite good in its own right. North was pretty disappointed that his soundtrack was discarded, especially because he did not find out until he saw the final cut just prior to its release. Typical Kubrick.
BGM
I totally agree. Thats a big reason why I started the thread. Because I know everybody has different tastes and that classics aren't enjoyed by all.DanAS1 wrote: I can't tell if your implying that 2001 is plodding, dull or overblown or simply saying that just because it is art doesn't mean it isn't plodding, dull or overblown. I certainly agree with the latter point, but hardly the former.
I'm a guy who really loves the film -- not because I'm "supposed" to love it, but because it really worked for me. As a writer, I get tired of critics asserting criticism like it's a fact simply because they might not appreciate something (which usually means they were looking for something else).
Just because some people think 2001 is boring -- or for that matter, just because most people might think it's boring -- doesn't make it boring. Boring, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
My wife was just telling me this morning how insane it was that when we were dating (roughly 20 years ago), I had a movie poster from A Clockwork Orange in my bedroom. She put a stop to that in a hurry.Greg wrote:I loved 2001 - thought the book was pretty good too - Clockwork Orange is one of my top movies as well - mainly because of Carlos' music - liked that book too - especially Burgess' "new" language it was written in - found myself referring to the glossary a lot until I got the hang of it -
OK. If you will stipulate that just as 2001 might bore some, it entrances others -- and that I'm one of the "others" -- I'll see if I can do what you requested.wang_chi7 wrote:
There are many movies that are considered bad (or even terrible) that I like or even love. Either because they are guilty pleasures, or because I genuinely think they are good.
There you go. Thats what I'm talking about. I did like Gladiator though, but it is very overrated IMO. I'm also a fan of Spielberg generally.DanAS1 wrote: OK. If you will stipulate that just as 2001 might bore some, it entrances others -- and that I'm one of the "others" -- I'll see if I can do what you requested.
I hated Jurassic Park. Just hated it. It bored me to tears. So did Tora, Tora, Tora. Gladiator won the Oscar, right? Bored me. In fact, most movies about swords bore me (though I loved Kill Bill). I'm not wowed by many of the Spielberg films, but I did like Jaws and Duel, the old flick with Dennis Weave).
On the other hand, I really liked "Little Children" which came out last year and received some good critical acclaim, but I still thought it was underrated. And as far as really stupid movies that I don't turn off as rapidly as I should, I'll give you one. It's called "The Craft." It's about a coven of teenage witches. Totally low brow and pedestrian. And yet ...
There you have it.
Quite true. I appreciate it for what it is, a fine example of artistic filmmaking. However, I do find it boring.DanAS1 wrote:
I'm a guy who really loves the film -- not because I'm "supposed" to love it, but because it really worked for me. As a writer, I get tired of critics asserting criticism like it's a fact simply because they might not appreciate something (which usually means they were looking for something else).
Just because some people think 2001 is boring -- or for that matter, just because most people might think it's boring -- doesn't make it boring. Boring, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Probably the most ridiculous thing I like to watch is Poker on TV. When I first heard of the concept, I thought it was a joke. Now I watch it. Go figure.wang_chi7 wrote: As for crappy movies. One of my all time favorites is Twister. Also 3000 Miles to Graceland, Big Trouble in Little China (which is where my screen name comes from), The Last Boy Scout, Any Given Sunday, Rocky IV, Over the Top, almost any Arnold film, Congo, there are many others. I liked Wyatt Earp, which I think won The Raspberry Award if I remember right; that one I genuinely like the others are guilty pleasures.
I'm sorry to hear that because it's one of my all-time favorite movies. I love it for all the same reasons Dan articulated above but I understand that it isn't for everybody and I even understand why some people find it dull. I'll simply add this: it's a movie I firmly believe should be seen in a movie theater, on a big screen, with theater-quality sound. Perhaps more than any other film, 2001 loses something when taken out of that environment.wang_chi7 wrote:I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey yesterday for the first time. It was on my list of things to watch for a very long time and I just never had gotten around to it. I did not like it at all.
I assume you're talking about the George Pal version of the film. It's cheesy and I love it for it's cheesiness. His films tend to seem very dated but I still enjoy that one. That said, there are better science fiction movies from that era. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is probably my favorite of the bunch. If you haven't seen that, it's worth checking out but be forewarned, it's a movie that reflects the era in which it was made so it's possible that it could seem cheesy too."War of the Worlds," I thought the ending seemed tacked on and too preachy and cheesy and the whole movie not very intersting and lets face it the special effects haven't held the test of time. I thought this movie was very poor on many aspects.
It's an understandable point of view but when it comes to that movie, I think it's impossible to separate the subject from the film. The movie only works (for those who thought it worked) if it's about Christ. There's no point in substituting another historical figure because the entire point of the film is that Christ suffered and died for humanity's sins. The movie is meant to reinforce that point on a truly visceral level and I found it effective. I had read about the scourge and the crucifixion but I had never really considered just how awful the former must have been."The Passion of the ####," just couldn't get into a snuff film. I know its about ####, but I really didn't need to waste my time seeing the crucifixion on film. As a movie I thought it was very poor, if it was a story of a guy other than #### people would have hated it; thats how I try to judge historical films- if it could be the same story about an unknown would the movie still be interesting? As a Christian, I would rather read the Bible for the story but choose to focus on the man's life rather than his death as what was trully important. I also felt it was capitalizing on a sacred story. And shied away from the actual Gospels.
I'm sure there are plenty of classics I disliked but, naturally, I'm drawing a blank on most of them right now. I tried to watch "The Deer Hunter' about a year ago and found it unbelievably dull. I just couldn't get through it.Are there other movies that are considered classics that you guys didn't like? You like the movies I listed?
I hate, hate, hated that movie. One of the worst movies of the last 10 years. Just behind The Fast and the Furious for movies that became popular. I generally like offbeat comedies, but ND was just painful to watch. I'm told its much better watching it a second time, but I refuse to give it a try.Mothman wrote:I don't think "Napoleon Dynamite" is exactly considered a classic but I know it has a legion of enthusiastic fans and I thought it was awful. I'm usually pretty open to unconventional comedies but it would be an understatement to say I disliked that movie. I found it painfully unfunny but I know people who think it was hilarious.
Jim
LOL! same here. I absolutely hated it and I can't imagine sitting through it again. I barely made it to the end the first time.wang_chi7 wrote:I hate, hate, hated that movie. One of the worst movies of the last 10 years. Just behind The Fast and the Furious for movies that became popular. I generally like offbeat comedies, but ND was just painful to watch. I'm told its much better watching it a second time, but I refuse to give it a try.
I saw "Last Temptation" when it was originally released and I remember liking it, although I that's about all I remember about it. I guess it didn't leave a lasting impression on me.As for The Passion. I guess I didn't like it because the story of ####'s death has been pounded into my skull countless times. I didn't need to see it on film to strengthen my faith or prove it. I'd rather watch Ben Hur or The Ten Commandments for a religious movie. I haven't seen the Scorsese "Last Temptation of ####" yet, but plan to soon.
I think that, at the time, I was considered to be pretty sophisticated and effective as sci-fi/special effects movies go.I didn't much care for either War of the Worlds, but yes I was specifically talking about that one. I like cheesy movies, but when they are considered classics they should not be. I've been known to watch movies that are just terrible because they are inadvertently funny such as Plan 9 or the many movies I posted a few posts ago. I guess I just was expecting something more because it is always on lists of all time best movies.
