Overrated "classics"

[ReActor]

As for the godfather-goodfellas stuff, I'm a BIG fan of Mafioso-style films and would say that goodfellas stands up well as an intro to this type of film. Godfather triology is practically a documentary so not one for those that aren't really into the genre - they'll just be bored.

I thought the Godfather was fantastic... yet I really didn't like Goodfellas. Not quite sure what governs that. Maybe it's to do with the structure - the guy becomes a success quite early on in the film and the rest is about his Scarface-like deterioration. I just couldn't see the point in depicting the rest of the story, or where it was going.

Edit: And 2001 absolutely rocks.

 

[00dave]

I'm going to use that age old condescending term that film snobs have used for so long, but really really does apply here.

It's not crap you just don't understand it!

It's both.
My opinion and that of many others.

 

[Bodhi]

Wel already established that there were lots of other stupid people who didn't understand it. You're merely agreeing with them.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Have to put my tuppence in here. Not seen all of 2001, but I've seen the start and it didn't exactly grab me. I suppose it has to be taken in context. When it was made it was probably ground breaking, like Star Wars was.
Compare it to stuff now, and the style of film making has changed considerably, it doesn't age very well (although Star Wars has done).

Even so, a boring film is precisely that, no matter when it was made. 2001 grabbed me to the point that I switched over in case a DIY show was on
Maybe I'm missing something, or just need to see the whole thing.

 

[Tom]

2001 needs to be viewed in the context of the period in which it was made. 1969 was an era of space exploration, missions to the moon, satellites transmitting pictures across the Atlantic, etc.

The opening scenes IMO are there to show how the monolith granted the ape creatures the ability to use tools, a trait which many ape-species exhibit today. They are wonderfully shot, and switching from the desolation of the desert and the first tool being thrown in the air in victory, to the barren vaccum of space with advanced craft orbiting the earth, is a classic moment in film.

I can't think of many scenes in film history as memorable as listening to The Blue Danube while watching a spacecraft dock with a station. Think how that scene would have played out with a different piece of music, or perhaps no music at all. The SFX boys deserve a special mention for the quality of the images, shooting small-scale models and making them appear as sharp as they did, is no mean feat, and requires a lot of patience, and time.

The cinematography is near-perfect, and clever tricks like the floating pen scene will always be remembered by anyone who has seen the film. Isolating the camera from the rotating sets, and locking it in other scenes, really does make you stop and think - 'how did they do that?' The dialogue is precise and to the point, it doesn't try and make the film any more exciting than it should be.

Also, I can't think of a single film that uses the natural silence in a vacuum like 2001 does. Every other film I have ever seen adds unrealistic rocket noises. In 2001, the very absence of sound is used to great effect, and IMO helps show the viewer the desolation and isolation of each instance.

I haven't read the book, although following Bodhi's comments I'll be buying it soon, but I didn't feel I needed the ending explained to me. It seemed to make sense, but I suspect Kubrick left the whole thing to each individual's interpretation.

Compare it to stuff now, and the style of film making has changed considerably, it doesn't age very well (although Star Wars has done).

I think it has aged extremely well, its still far superior to much of the crap churned out today. The attention to detail is astonishing.

 

[old.user4556]

The cinematography is near-perfect, and clever tricks like the floating pen scene will always be remembered by anyone who has seen the film. Isolating the camera from the rotating sets, and locking it in other scenes, really does make you stop and think - 'how did they do that?' The dialogue is precise and to the point, it doesn't try and make the film any more exciting than it should be.

Absolutely agree, I found myself as a youngster saying "dad?! how do they do that?!", so I knew as a kid it was special.

G

 

[Bodhi]

2001 needs to be viewed in the context of the period in which it was made. 1969 was an era of space exploration, missions to the moon, satellites transmitting pictures across the Atlantic, etc.

The opening scenes IMO are there to show how the monolith granted the ape creatures the ability to use tools, a trait which many ape-species exhibit today. They are wonderfully shot, and switching from the desolation of the desert and the first tool being thrown in the air in victory, to the barren vaccum of space with advanced craft orbiting the earth, is a classic moment in film.

I can't think of many scenes in film history as memorable as listening to The Blue Danube while watching a spacecraft dock with a station. Think how that scene would have played out with a different piece of music, or perhaps no music at all. The SFX boys deserve a special mention for the quality of the images, shooting small-scale models and making them appear as sharp as they did, is no mean feat, and requires a lot of patience, and time.

The cinematography is near-perfect, and clever tricks like the floating pen scene will always be remembered by anyone who has seen the film. Isolating the camera from the rotating sets, and locking it in other scenes, really does make you stop and think - 'how did they do that?' The dialogue is precise and to the point, it doesn't try and make the film any more exciting than it should be.

Also, I can't think of a single film that uses the natural silence in a vacuum like 2001 does. Every other film I have ever seen adds unrealistic rocket noises. In 2001, the very absence of sound is used to great effect, and IMO helps show the viewer the desolation and isolation of each instance.

I haven't read the book, although following Bodhi's comments I'll be buying it soon, but I didn't feel I needed the ending explained to me. It seemed to make sense, but I suspect Kubrick left the whole thing to each individual's interpretation.




I think it has aged extremely well, its still far superior to much of the crap churned out today. The attention to detail is astonishing.

Agreed. Also, the opening credits when the sun, moon and earth line up at the climax of Also Spracht Zarahuistra (sp?) is pretty immense. Best opening credits ever? They are imo.

 

[Tom]

Absolutely agree, I found myself as a youngster saying "dad?! how do they do that?!", so I knew as a kid it was special.

G

Although nobody's Dad really had the answer

Spoiler

Although of course it was done with a piece of glass rotating in front of the lens, with the pen stuck to that glass

 

[Dubbs]

Hi, we DO have a spoiler tag on these forums. Please use them.

So tell everyone else here!!! I don't think the spoiler tag is that appropriate considering...

 

[nath]

The dialogue is precise and to the point, it doesn't try and make the film any more exciting than it should be.

I think the dialogue was intetionally quite bland to show how inhuman human beings have become. Pretty much the only emotion in the film is shown when Hal is taken offline. Even the fella on the vidphone thing show's absolutley no sign of emotion when talking to his young daughter on her birthday.

 

[Tom]

Well, he does smile and laugh at his daughter's antics. Also, you see Dave's parents (or is it the other guy) sending their love to their son, which is hardly inhuman. Also, in the meeting on the space station before they travel down to the moon, there is some joking.

BAH, you do realise all this talk of 2001 is now forcing me to buy the special edition DVD?

 

[nath]

It's true, they're not machines.. but everyone did seem fairly empty.

 

[Tom]

Interesting interview here:

http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html

 

[ReActor]

It's true, they're not machines.. but everyone did seem fairly empty.

I don't think the way people acted was meant to be a comment on the state of humanity. I think it was just meant to add to the general atmosphere of coldness. Personally I thought it made the people seem more realistic. I dunno though. It's a bit of a headache.

 

[Ivan]

- Great Gatsby
- Apocalypse Now
- Titanic

 

[Khefru]

I always felt Deliverance was a bit of an overrated classic. Although not a bad film at all, having heard all the good stuff about it for years, I was left slightly disappointed when I eventually saw it. This is often the case when a film has been hyped up by people. Had I not heard anything about it b4 watching it, then I would probably be raving about it too.