2001: A Space Odyssey returning to theaters with new 70mm print for 50th Anniversary

Through a strange turn of events known as life, somehow... I have never seen this film.

And then, for a bunch of years it became about waiting for the perfect time. Not wanting to just throw it on the tv on a lazy afternoon, I know it’s a special film. It’s a Kubrick, for that alone, but also besides that.

Looks like the stars have aligned, & I’ll finally have a date with this one.

It’s time!


{<buffer}
I'm in the exact same boat. Hopefully it's near me.
 
There's only one?

No, there's multiple around, but I live less than a mile away from the best one in the city, and if any theater is going to show this, it would be that one. If this theater's not getting it, it's doubtful that any of them are.

I just went and saw Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid at this theater a couple of weeks ago for $5, and it was glorious.
 
Can't wait for the new kids reactions..

Meh, not enough CGI or action scenes..

To much talking, and the end was stupid, what did it even mean.
I watched this film for a class in high school, and those were basically the reactions from the majority of the class.
 
all i need to go see it is a couple of tabs of acid,and i'll be set.

This is how I first saw this movie. I also watched the Shinning and A Clockwork Orange after some gel tabs. Kubrick's cinematography in those films is great for Acid.

They all felt pretty intense, but A Clockwork Orange was pretty gross to watch in that state of mind. I don't regret the experience, but I wouldn't recommend it to a first time tripper... lol.
 
For sure, but there's a difference between saying "woah, what does it mean?" vs "I didn't understand it, thus it was stupid"

It's been my observation that some people just have no tolerance for mystery like that. My dad is that way. He doesn't like Kubrick's films and it's because he feels like when he sits down to watch a movie he wants to be told a story, and he wants that story to be clear and comprehensible.

I disagree with him that every story needs to be that way, but I can at least understand why someone might take that position.

Even though I love most of Kubrick's films, this is one reason why I push back a bit when people say he was the greatest filmmaker of all time.
 
Through a strange turn of events known as life, somehow... I have never seen this film.

And then, for a bunch of years it became about waiting for the perfect time. Not wanting to just throw it on the tv on a lazy afternoon, I know it’s a special film. It’s a Kubrick, for that alone, but also besides that.

Looks like the stars have aligned, & I’ll finally have a date with this one.

It’s time!


{<buffer}

Finally saw it for the first time tonight, in glorious 70mm.

In a word...

<SelenaWow>
 
I can never get over how modern it looks from clips. 90% looks like it could be from a movie released this year....

I never actually watched the film, I kinda wanna ask my grandfather to watch it with me.

Do it. You’ll regret it when you no longer have the chance.
 
Posted about this in the SMD but didn't see this thread. Saw it two Sundays ago, had already seen it of course...but really it was like seeing it for the first time, incredible experience. They were recreating the original cinematic feel too, in that they the music playing before anything came on the screen, the interval etc. It was funny, they had a warning before the start of the screening that "everything that happens after the rating screen is intentional" lol.

I can see up to a point why Tarkovsky hated it (from his point of view), and though I think I prefer Solaris on the whole; both it and 2001 are just amazing films. They are more like cousins than opposites. Very few films have ever captured the wonder/mystery/terror of the unknown in space quite like 2001 has. And in the cinema, it is an extremely visceral experience...especially the second half for obvious reasons. Night and day from watching at home.

Unfortunately two of the girls I was with absolutely hated every minute of it <45>Tbh one of them runs a small theatre company, thought she might have been kind of ok with it, but she just moaned about how much she hated Kubrick and how it was so 'self-indulgent' during the intermission'. Thankfully I was two seats away from here haha. The other one, had never heard anything about it and thought 'space odyssey' sounded cool, she isn't into films at all so I couldn't believe it when I was told she was coming. Another mate liked it, but mostly for the visuals...he is a little into philosophy though (and took a few classes for his degree), so I think that even though he doesn't watch art films he is at least a bit more predisposed to that kind of thing.
 
Can't wait for the new kids reactions..

Meh, not enough CGI or action scenes..

To much talking, and the end was stupid, what did it even mean.
I personally never got all the love for this movie. Its long, boring and confusing. The end IS stupid. What DID it mean? To me, it felt like they had no where to go with the story and just put in a bunch of confusing shit to cover up their inability to close the story.
 
I can see up to a point why Tarkovsky hated it (from his point of view)

Never ceases to entertain me that Tarkovsky of all people hated 2001 but was quite giddy on Terminator. :D

And yeah, you can kind of see why he would hate it, especially being a technophobe and everything. Yeah, they both work on the abstract but very... different kinds of abstract.

but she just moaned about how much she hated Kubrick and how it was so 'self-indulgent' during the intermission'.

<Varys01>

Eh. My friends still haven't forgiven me for taking them to Arrival and Birdman.

When they took me to Poltergeist 2015 they were like "this will be much better than fucking Birdman you dumb goof!":D
 
From what I have heard the books go into more detail on certain aspects, e.g. more specific about the role of the Monolith, and other things I assume. Part of me is tempted to read the books, or look up the details, but ultimately I think I prefer the ambiguity of the film. Though even without looking up those details, you can obviously deduce that whatever the monolith is, whoever made it and whatever its ultimate purpose is, it's effect on humans is to lead them to a further stage of evolution - the apemen at the start learn to use tools after touching it, the implication obviously being that it kickstarted human evolution. Later when they touch it on the moon, even though humanity has reached space already, it's signal leads them to make the first manned voyage to Jupiter (and perhaps there is a slight jump forward again?). After travelling through the star-gate, Bowman gradually becomes older and more frail in that strange room before - after seeing the monolith again - transforming into the 'star-child' we see at the end of the film. Kubrick wasn't religious so I wouldn't read anything specific like that into it, but there is clearly some element of transcendence involved there. A common interpretation I have heard is that it represents a final stage of human evolution in the sense of the Nietzschean Übermensch. Given the use of Strauss' theme to Also Sprach Zarathustra I think you'd have to say there is some level if influence there, even if the ins and outs aren't clearly defined.
 
I personally never got all the love for this movie. Its long, boring and confusing. The end IS stupid. What DID it mean? To me, it felt like they had no where to go with the story and just put in a bunch of confusing shit to cover up their inability to close the story.
"Father Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Do”
 
Back
Top