This movie is fucking boring and shit

This movie is fucking boring and shit.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MSo6s_xrj4c
youtube.com/watch?v=mpWMnlMIWAU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

t.

stanley kubrick? more like stanley stoleTHAT!

yes it is

Fucking brainlets I swear

you dont understand it

wew it's ogre lads, cuck-brick is finished. space stations, chairs, and astronauts. what a fucking hack.

>shots of thing in space
>interior shot
>talking to a screen
>man floating in space

Unprecedented and Kubrick would NOT have thought to make such shots.

I will send you $100 if you were born before 1990

wtf i hate kubrick now

yeah its shit, who would have guessed a bunch of autistic people who sit in their basement all day would have shit taste.

I think you're overestimating the taste of some people here

does anyone really understand it? one of the things i like so much about his work, you can interpret it in so many different ways. 2001 is about the moon hoax, it's about evolution, it's about war, it's about 'advanced television teaching machine', it's about death, etc. regardless that opening scene is one of the greatest things every put to film.

>boring
Baseless statement, nothing but a description of your inherent emotional state, and says nothing of the film itself.
>shit
Prove it. I expect no less than 500 words.

I saw it first time when I was 15. It was like a spiritual experience.

...

look, honestly the film only holds up in the context of the time. it was unparalleled when it was released. it's the same with a lot of these movies that are called masterpieces; they do something new and it revolutionalizes cinema. that doesn't always mean the film is accessible and easily enjoyed by all.

brainlet

>this entire thread

Is 2001 the only high budget art film ever made?

2001 actually has an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous plot.

>An advanced alien civilisation leaves a device on prehistoric earth that accelerates mankind's evolution
>Several thousand years later, man is on the verge of going interstellar, lunar excavations uncover another device which sends a signal to an even larger device near Jupiter
>A mission is sent to Jupiter to investigate, but the information about contact with an advanced alien civilisation is above the flight crew Dave Bowman and Frank Poole's need-to-know, being forced by orders to habitually lie to them causes the onboard HAL 9000 AI to become psychotic and murder the crew
>Dave survives and learns the truth, flies an EVA pod to the monolith, which turns out to be a kind of rapid transit system
>Dave is taken to a testing area modelled after a human habitat and evaluated
>At the moment of his death he is deemed worthy and reborn as a new order of life to function as a custodian for guiding mankind to the next stage of evolution

That's it.

...

i'm not saying i didn't enjoy it, it's probably my favourite kubrick movie. i'm just trying to explain why people might not enjoy it. the thing is, the more you delve into a medium the better you get at analysing and finding the best shit. it's like a wine taster, or someone who is really into music; only people who go super deep into a field can appreciate certain things. it has nothing to do with brain size at all.

sheeeeeit you really are a brainlet

No.

Also a more interesting film than 2001.

Scratch that I'm a readlet. I stand by the second sentence though.

>Oh no he understood the incredibly simple plot of 2001
>Quick call him a brainlet

you know that the movie isn't based on the book.

eat some "brain food" and try again user

why does everyone overrate this movie so much?

If I was quoting the book I'd have said Saturn, not Jupiter. Besides which I only read the books long after seeing the movie multiple times.

I mean, it's abstract enough to be interpreted in a number of ways, but you can't put just any interpretation on it. In one aspect of the film, though, I saw someone say the monolith represents the cinema screen as a subtle, but not so subtle, fourth wall break.

The key to enjoying a kubrick film is to turn it off halfway through

It was a very comfy movie, I usually like to look into deep stuff but I can't lie a good portion of the movie went over my head and I didn't necessarily care to read into it any more. The ending scenes didn't make sense to me, I didn't understand the obelisk, I didn't understand the white room with his future self or whatever it was, or the big baby at the end.

See my previous comment for a possible interpretation of the monolith.

I'm not sure how to think about that.

thats what she said about you. boring and shit.

>tfw you realize they didnt even get the space scene right, there would have been sound from the atmosphere impacting the ship

...

>watch it in High school
>wut
>read book to try and gain clarity
>still wut

Should I even bother revisiting this as an adult?

what didn't you like about it?

youtube.com/watch?v=MSo6s_xrj4c
youtube.com/watch?v=mpWMnlMIWAU

there's a ten minute scene of flashing lights for stoner hippies, what do you think?

a lot of rob ager's work is very good,sucks that so much of it is behind a paywall

'Cause it's a masterpiece.

Unironically kill yourself

They want everyone to think they are smart for liking an abstract/old movie.

Find me a single frame from 2001 that isn't aesthetic.

Do it. You won't. I'll wait.

Going to see it for my first time in 70mm in an old theater next week. I can't wait.

...

It's an 8/10

i went to a movie theater not an art gallery, queer

Too bad faggot, you got art

Exactly. People forget that film can be a medium for artistic expression. While I find some arthouse shit obnoxious and pretentious, I thought 2001 was done well. It was ambiguity done right. Most of what you need is in the visuals. Gotta look for motifs n' shit (like the myriad rectangular imagery throughout the film, not just the monolith).

as a movie it failed. artistic expression and it's symbolic and open for interpretation are just excuses used to pretend failure was intentionally done.

>as a movie it failed
It doesn't even attempt to be a movie in the formal sense, it doesn't have a third act nor does it try to.

Literally all wrong. It's about Nietzsches concept of the overman.

That's the pleb filter activating and doing it's job.

That cover always looked like michael j fox

kubrick WANted it three hours longer but the studio wouldn’t let him.