[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

Damn, you're good!

Thanks! Now it's time for bed, I'm about to pass out...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I still haven't seen 2001, or I have and I don't remember it.


Anyhow, just finished watching Adrian Brody in The Jacket. I say watching, I was working, but it sucked me in by having good performances and a naked Keira Knightley. Always a bonus. The film actually really suprised me, being another one of those darker films a lá The Mothman Prophecies that slips under everyones radar and ends up being far better than expected. Certainly better than weirdfest The Machinist, anyhow, which suffered from being completely readable no matter how many twists they threw at you. The Jacket does have a convoluted, if contrived, plot, but it reaches natural conclusions and dare I say it, actually suprised me by the end. And not in the way you think it might.

Spoiler:

It was happy!

It's closer to Abre Los Ojos, but has moments of Vanilla Sky in it too, in the sense that it shares some of the sun of the remake and a lot of the dark of the original, plus has the same kind of frustrating, ethereal feel that only a movie which deals with primordial fears and surreal concepts can. If you've ever seen any of these films, or enjoyed Jacobs Ladder (another film it shares a lot with), then you'll like it a lot. It also has the same heartache you can often end up feeling these movies - they're dark, but human. The desperation of the protagonist makes you hope for them and identify with them, and the love they often feel for the female characters is tinged with sadness...

Actually, I've noticed that often with this kind of film, the love interest is beautiful, but somehow unobtainable. Interesting, almost as if there's a whole genre there. Thoughts?

Yeah, The Jacket is really nice, playing with all kinds of emotions; it made me laugh, then sit in wonder, then be sad, then... well, you get the picture.

And I liked the Machinist, myself, but it lacked the melancholy of The Jacket. It was "just" a very clever psychological thriller a la David Lynch. (not readable at all to me, this one )

[omloflump]

I'm not bothered at all. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece that can't be harmed by something as trivial as "opinion". I just wish that everyone could see its brilliance as clearly as it deserves to be seen.

I've often felt that way too. I'd take Kubrick's 'wanking' over any number of independent tales of ordinary people. And here I shall quote a clunky and foul-mouthed piece I once wrote (I'd post a link but for the profanity in the title):

...when you're making a film you have to use the medium to its full potential. Otherwise, you're just doing a second-rate novel. Why bother making a film if you're not going to invest any care in the only elements that separate film from everything else? You have to give it a reason for being a film; you have to justify the medium’s (and the film's) existence. Don’t make the audience think that the only reason you made your film was because you couldn’t write a novel. It’s true that it’s easier to make a ‘good’ film then a ‘good’ novel, but that’s no excuse. Make something uniquely filmic.

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

That's "The Abominable Dr. Phibes", and yes, you are correct.
Damn, you're good!

ScottMate

Love means never having to say you're ugly.


I thought the sequel was better, but it's been a while since I watched either one.

[pinkgothic]

Scott! OMGWTF! Someone has my opinion on 2001, too! You've just become my hero *glomps, squeezes, and chirrs*

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Scott! OMGWTF! Someone has my opinion on 2001, too! You've just become my hero *glomps, squeezes, and chirrs*

Pinkgothic, rest assured, the vast majority of people in the world would share your opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey. That's why I'm glad I don't.

Basically what I mean is, let's face it, it's not a majority that goes to the movies to think or see art...they go to be entertained. 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't an entertainment film, and it has a smaller audience (but in my opinion a better audience) than something like Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

[squarejawhero]

That's extremely snobby of you. Terminator 2 is a fantastic film regardless of whether it's considered art or not... if anything the art that's gone into it is incredible. I've seen Stan Winston's studio and the Terminators inside, and they're amazing. Just because it's a glossy, occasionally surreal and shocking, sci-fi blockbuster doesn't mean it doesn't have anything worthwhile going for it.

Anyone who discounts films because they're art films, or blockbusters, can't appreciate everything that cinema offers... not that I'm accusing you of that, Once, but a film just like T2 appeals to a wide range of people doesn't mean its fans aren't any less worthwhile than those of 2001!

[pinkgothic]

I'm going to have to say what Trep says in many other threads with other topics now: there are movies which are both art AND entertainment. I watch those, so nyah.

2001 gets really close IMO - but the last bit of it, like Scott said, just doesn't cut it IMO, so it's never going to be in my top ten, though I do own the DVD and like the movie.

So.



Once A Villain

Sorry, but I'm not letting you, or anyone else, assume I'm some action-movie whore.

</exaggeration>

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I'm going to have to say what Trep says in many other threads with other topics now: there are movies which are both art AND entertainment. I watch those, so nyah.

2001 gets really close IMO - but the last bit of it, like Scott said, just doesn't cut it IMO, so it's never going to be in my top ten, though I do own the DVD and like the movie.

So.



Once A Villain

Sorry, but I'm not letting you, or anyone else, assume I'm some action-movie whore.

</exaggeration>

I watch all kinds of movies. It completely depends on my mood. Sometimes after a very long day, I just need some escapism. Other times, I am feeling much more introspective and deep and I'll watch something very arty. An escapist movie can be done extremely well and doesn't have to exclude the artsy crowd.

[pinkgothic]

BTW, the last movie I watched was The Machinist, on DVD. BoyToy and I had wanted to see it on the big screen, but we screwed up our schedule timing, so that didn't work out - but at any rate. It was a tincy bit too slow for me, but I'm amazed of the movie that it manages to pull of containing only lovable real characters (well, with one exception, the guy at work that kept watching everyone, but nothing he did really impacted the main story, so ) - tragedy based only on unfortunate events, essentially.

Ah, whatever. Good movie. I'd love to watch it again and try and catch all the symbols for the sheer hell of it. Sort of like a real life adventure game.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by omloflump

...when you're making a film you have to use the medium to its full potential. Otherwise, you're just doing a second-rate novel. Why bother making a film if you're not going to invest any care in the only elements that separate film from everything else? You have to give it a reason for being a film; you have to justify the medium’s (and the film's) existence. Don’t make the audience think that the only reason you made your film was because you couldn’t write a novel. It’s true that it’s easier to make a ‘good’ film then a ‘good’ novel, but that’s no excuse. Make something uniquely filmic.

I completely agree with your assessment. I've said it a million times and I'll say it another million, film is a visual medium. It's strengths are completely different than the strengths of the written word or even music heard on its own. Many people (including a disgustingly high number within the industry itself) don't understand this. Telling the vast majority of a story through the visuals is what makes film great. This is why silent films are missed. Not because I don't love sound films, but because filmmakers were much more inventive with the visuals then since they had to be.

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the last 30 minutes of the film or so (along with the first 30) are miniature silent films. There's no dialogue. Kubrick shows the final stage in human evolution without needing to say a word. Another great choice he made is that we don't see the aliens. We know they are watching and studying Bowman, as we see him rapidly aging and transforming, but their physical form remains a mystery to us.

It is also fitting that Bowman's trip through space is through a tunnel, a birth canal of sorts, since that is what Bowman is to do: be reborn into a higher form of existence. This isn't just a fantastic sequence, but it's a necessary sequence. The aliens have allowed humankind to reach this point with only very minor interventions in the forms of the monoliths (guiding lights in a sense). Mankind could have destroyed its own future (the next stage) had HAL, a human creation, succeeded in killing everyone aboard the ship to Jupiter. But Bowman succeeded in stopping HAL and escaping.

What is it that makes all of this even more intriguing? It demands thought and comprehension of VISUALS. Thank God some people know how to make movies.

[Once A Villain]

squarejaw, pink, and melanie...perhaps I worded things incorrectly. There are great entertainment films (T2 is quite good, and yes the effects, makeup, Stan Winston creations, etc. all required a lot of hard work). My point is that it takes more effort on the part of the viewer to understand and appreciate something like 2001 as opposed to T2. Thus, a smaller number of people who appreciate it.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I'm going to have to say what Trep says in many other threads with other topics now: there are movies which are both art AND entertainment. I watch those, so nyah.

2001 gets really close IMO - but the last bit of it, like Scott said, just doesn't cut it IMO, so it's never going to be in my top ten, though I do own the DVD and like the movie.

So.



Once A Villain

Sorry, but I'm not letting you, or anyone else, assume I'm some action-movie whore.

</exaggeration>

Even though I find the idea of agreeing with you so that I can also get glomped by you immensely attractive (especially so because I'm a glomp virgin. I've never been glomped before!), I have to disagree with you.



2001: A Space Odyssey represents my ideal sci-fi movie. I've always been a big fan of hard sci-fi, especially the works of authors who tend to focus more on ideas and characters than action. I adore authors like Asimov, Clarke, Clement, and Heinlein for that reason. Short stories written by these authors which appeared on publications like Astounding Stories heavily rely on a development and then subsequent execution of an idea. You will find that these stories often lack heavy action. Isaac Asimov's stories for example usually are consisted of people talking. You won't find robots and aliens rampaging in his stories.

I prefer sci-fi films like 2001: A Space Odyssey over action-oriented films like T2 or WoW. Not that action-oriented films can't be entertaining, they are and I do like a number of such films, but the focus on action usually hinders the full exploration of scientific ideas, puzzles, and character development. The recent Will Smith vehicle I, Robot was the perfect example of this. The over-done action sequences in that movie completely ruined the story for me. At least in my book, there's no comparison between films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and T2.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

squarejaw, pink, and melanie...perhaps I worded things incorrectly. There are great entertainment films (T2 is quite good, and yes the effects, makeup, Stan Winston creations, etc. all required a lot of hard work). My point is that it takes more effort on the part of the viewer to understand and appreciate something like 2001 as opposed to T2. Thus, a smaller number of people who appreciate it.

...because it's crap?

*runs*

[samIamsad]

2001 > The Terminator > Judgement Day.

'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by gillygilly

Not that action-oriented films can't be entertaining, they are and I do like a number of such films, but the focus on action usually hinders the full exploration of scientific ideas, puzzles, and character development.

Depends what kind of action you're talking about. Big bang after big bang just for the sake of having big bang after big bang? I agree. Used as a vehicle to ehance the emotional impact and pacing of the plot... I disagree.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

2001: A Space Odyssey represents my ideal sci-fi movie.

Perhaps because it is the ideal sci-fi movie. Sorry, I just wanted to wear my "FILM SNOB" sign a bit longer for everyone else in this thread. Oh who the hell am I kidding, I am a film snob. I try to be nice about it though. It's hard to conceal... Heh.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Perhaps because it is the ideal sci-fi movie. Sorry, I just wanted to wear my "FILM SNOB" sign a bit longer for everyone else in this thread. Oh who the hell am I kidding, I am a film snob. I try to be nice about it though. It's hard to conceal... Heh.

I usually do not like snobs of any kind. And sanjie, you definitely seem like a film snob, but you are a film snob who happens to love Akira Kurosawa so how can't I not like and respect you as a fellow film fan? You had me at Sanjuro.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I usually do not like snobs of any kind. And sanjie, you definitely seem like a film snob, but you are a film snob who happens to love Akira Kurosawa so how can't I not like and respect you as a fellow film fan? You had me at Sanjuro.

gilly, I love you. I have that poster in my bathroom. LOL!

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

gilly, I love you. I have that poster in my bathroom. LOL!

Is that some kind of twisted metaphor? Like.. in reality, I don't give a sh*t about this movie?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Is that some kind of twisted metaphor? Like.. in reality, I don't give a sh*t about this movie?

No, no... I'm very serious. That's the poster for the movie Sanjuro. Given my old screenname here, I obviously like it. I prefer the first one (Yojimbo), but it had the same main character, Sanjuro. The poster for Yojimbo is larger and it's in my theater room. The Sanjuro poster I could only find small, so it's like a picture in my bathroom. Heh.