hi can anyone recommend similar movies, that are epic, on a grand scale, with mystery elements (not necessarily sci-fi)
I watched this high, and its sort of relaxing, like watching a painting come to life, moments of silence, moments of classical music, and the psychedelic wormhole at the end, it felt like I was going through it also.
thank you.
If you google the words, "films similar to 2001 A Space Odyssey," it will pull up numerous offerings. How accurate the offerings are regarding similarity might be subjective.
---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.
If you google the words, "films similar to 2001 A Space Odyssey," it will pull up numerous offerings.
Interstellar, 2014, although the ending was not of my liking.
Cosmos, the whole series from 1980.
Bladerunner, the original 1982 theatrical release.
La belle noiseuse, 1991.
Music and girls: http://BartGirlsRadioStation70.PlayTheRadio.com/
Apocalypse Now was FFC's slant on the very same "Cold War" American madness that Kubrick deals with here but in a totally different way of course.
In both cases we are "going up river on a mission" but the mission itself is totally screwed, hence "beyond the infinite" and "beyond here was only Kurtz".
And both FFC and Kubrick put great thought into an ending that was NOT Hollywood but was esoteric.
And both use wallpaper to carry story along ie space/war to try to justify the madness.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
Andrei Tarkovsky's Solyaris.
share"hi can anyone recommend similar movies, that are epic, on a grand scale, with mystery elements (not necessarily sci-fi)."
Aren't most all of Kubrick's subsequent films, including "Barry Lyndon", "The Shining", and "Eyes Wide Shut" " also epic, on a grand scale, with mystery elements (not necessarily sci-fi)"?
"I watched this high, and its sort of relaxing, like watching a painting come to life, moments of silence, moments of classical music, and the psychedelic wormhole at the end, it felt like I was going through it also."
Watching a Kubrick movie while stoned is probably the worst way of watching it (or most movies). The only films 'worth' watching while stoned would be nonsensical ones, as when nonsense meets up with, is confronted with, nonsense there's an outside chance they might cancel each other out. Lol.
The "Stargate" sequence is anything but "psychedelic" (that would be the stoner hippy's fantasy misinterpretation), but nightmarishly overpowering for the protagonist, Dave Bowman, a traumatic encounter with the repressed real (analogous to the mysterious, overwhelming ocean in "Solaris"), what generates the next scene, the surreal 18th century bedroom simulation.
[deleted]
(It appears that the stoner-hippy who responded to my post above has had his invective, his abusive, nonsensical post deleted. But this does not prevent me from responding to his now-spectral post).
"... the new psychedelic fascism -- the eye-popping, multimedia, quadrasonic, drug-oriented conditioning of human beings by other beings -- which many believe will usher in the forfeiture of human citizenship and the beginning of zombiedom." ----Kubrick
"Aren't most all of Kubrick's subsequent films, including "Barry Lyndon", "The Shining", and "Eyes Wide Shut" " also epic, on a grand scale, with mystery elements (not necessarily sci-fi)"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Yes, but Ive already seen them dumbass.'
How very clever of you to fail to notice that those films are also ' epic, on a grand scale, with mystery elements (not necessarily sci-fi)"? So very clever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watching a Kubrick movie while stoned is probably the worst way of watching it (or most movies).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Wrong, its the best way. Heightened sound, heightened visuals, more immersion.'
Only at the delusional level of a retreat into myopic, egocentric and solipsistic fantasy. Being stoned is a withdrawal from the world, a de-immersion, a dis-intensification, a collapse of all critical faculties and regression into temporary psychosis (the short-circuiting of the fantasmatic onto the empirical). No doubt you are someone who argues that surgeons should be stoned while operating on patients because they'll then be endowed with "heightened visuals, more immersion." Perhaps airline pilots too? Maybe Dave Bowman and Frank Poole and HAL should also have been stoned to enhance their concentration and immersion in the mission to outer space. Perhaps reading a novel, or writing one, while stoned will magically improve the 'creativity' and the focus and improve the immersion! How very clever! Insightful!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only films 'worth' watching while stoned would be nonsensical ones, as when nonsense meets up with, is confronted with, nonsense there's an outside chance they might cancel each other out. Lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'no, thats just stupid.'
And being stoned isn't? Being reduced to the status of a babbling baby?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Stargate" sequence is anything but "psychedelic" (that would be the stoner hippy's fantasy misinterpretation), but nightmarishly overpowering for the protagonist, Dave Bowman, a traumatic encounter with the repressed real (analogous to the mysterious, overwhelming ocean in "Solaris"), what generates the next scene, the surreal 18th century bedroom simulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was visually psychedleic, dumbass, the colours and the imagery, and the panning camera made my feel like I was flying over the landscapes."
You mean being stoned made you 'feel' such delusional 'feel good' fantasies. Nihilist hedonic narcissism makes you clever? If you were to actually watch the film while sober, and attempt to concentrate (difficult for most people to handle today even while sober, being permanently agitated, unfocused, 'too wired to concentrate', to hysterical), you might just begin to notice the shots of Dave Bowman in the Pod, in a state of severe and chronic traumatic horror. The images are not 'psychedelic', are not the result of a small child in a Montessori creche or a stoner hippy píss-artist throwing paint on a canvas, are not 'pretty colours flying' ...
The op has a point, a wired magazine article once pointed to a study that seemed to link cannabis to heightening ones neural connections, for instance improved vocabulary and pattern recognition.
Both can help with improved interpretation of a complex film.
Although all things in moderation.
"The op has a point, a wired magazine article once pointed to a study that seemed to link cannabis to heightening ones neural connections, for instance improved vocabulary and pattern recognition.
Both can help with improved interpretation of a complex film."
Not really. That is more delusion, more subjectivization and interpellation of liberal-hedonist ideology, of permanent misery. It's a self-deceiving escape from all reason, an escape into the Imaginary, into the impossible fantasy of enwombing 'wholeness' (ie the child's oedipal fantasy), the result of which is always the same: failure, a failure to 'enjoy', a depressive comedown, a self-loathing guilt, an inability to do anything else, a permanent imprisonment in that hedonic-depressive treadmill. Deferring to Wired mag as an 'authority' on stoner psychosis is analogous to deferring to a TV ad as an 'authority' on the commodity being promoted and glorified, like deferring to cigarette companies and their PR as 'authorities' on the effects of smoking, like deferring to Gambling corporations and their PR as 'authorities' on the subject of obsessive-compulsive gambling disorders ("They're just exercising their fwee chwoice!"), like deferring to Brothels as having the last word on the subject of prostitution, like deferring to serial rapists as having the last word on the subject of rape (the usual twisted excuses: "But he has experience of it! He knows what he's talking about! What experience of rape have you got? You've got none, have you? You've never even done it, have you? You know nothing, you're ignorant! These rapists are experts on the topic of rape! They know all about it! They are genuine, authentic people who speak the truth! They are the authorities that we must defer to for all advice about rape!"). The total collapse of the Ethical. A deferrence to pure Evil ... not much different to appealing to stoner crackpot psychotics as the last word on their egomaniacal derangement. And so on. There's little point in giving examples, or presenting anecdotes of stoner derangement, as that completely misses the point here: the very irrational glorification of stonerism is a symptom, a direct manifestation of liberalism's suicidal endgame.
This isn't about banning anything, which invariably makes matters worse, eg the Prohibition era in the U.S.; today, even talking about restricting anything, like say, the mad, unhinged gun fetish in the US, drives people nuts, into raving panic-stricken gun nutters (they are all increasingly becoming like Private Pyle in "Full Metal Jacket"): if someone wants to become a chronic drug addict (in any realm, from alcohol and drugs to the vast range of other addictions), then let themselves fúck themselves up, commit slow suicide. That isn't the issue here: the issue is when such irrational crackpot loons insist that they are doing something desireable, productive, 'rational' etc, something to defend and encourage, when all they are really doing is 'enjoying' their misery and their imprisonment in it, their own repression. That's when all reason and all ethics are gone, when they and their idiot defenders have lost the plot, are already lost ... terminally. I have yet to ever meet a (long term) stoner who isn't pathologically fúcked up ... Like a rabble of stoners are ever going to change anything, even do anything? Going to progress anything? Going to be revolutionary? Stoners are the ultimate ultra-conservatives: the stoner hippies of the 1960s largely ended up becoming the Reagonites/Thatcherites of the 1980s, and it is pretty crucial to understand how this turnaround came about, in the same way as understanding how a [failed] petit bourgeoise turns into a raving Nazi psycho ....
Stoners reject all complexity and retreat into cartoon infantilism, like calling the "Stargate" sequences as 'psychedelic'.
I'll have to defer to Bill Hicks
Again..."if you think illegal drugs have never contributed anything positive to society than throw all your music albums out, because all the best music was done by bands that were pretty high! The Beatles were so high they even let Ringo sing a few tunes"
Although I understand some of where your coming from but your stance is a little too absolute for me.
I try not to latch onto ideologies too much.
For instance Stephen King and Philip K Dick were both on drugs for some of their best works.
Or William S Burroughs or Hunter S Thompson.
And even though Kubrick dismissed psychedelics as "navel" gazing his later films suggest he tripped at least once.
You are incredibly naïve, brad, turning simple causality upsidedown to excuse brain damage: it was drugs that destroyed these guys: read Dick's "A Scanner Darkly" (and see Linklater's film adaptation, probably the best adaptation of a Dick novel). Only an idiot would believe the stupid excuses your are making.
shareMake no mistake, I enjoy your posts and find you to be very intelligent.
I agree this is not an issue free from dangers, as dicks afterward to scanner darkly states. I am not making excuses, it's just that your responses seem to deny in the absolute that any good can come of mind altering substances.
Another example would be the guy who discovered that DNA is a double helix, he came to this realization while on LSD.
Sometimes when very intelligent people do these things they can create amazing things that benefit humanity at their own personal risk. Sometimes it leads them to devise things that their normal consciousness might miss by mixing random thoughts.
Remember prescription drugs kill more people than illegal ones.
Anytime you mess with your biochemistry it's risky.
Like I said I agree with some of what you say.
"countdown to zero, i dont have time to read your long posts,"
Are you suffering from attention deficit disorder?
it's just that your responses seem to deny in the absolute that any good can come of mind altering substances.
The first quote was countdown the 2nd was my response to him, he's actually all right and a very thought provoking poster, it's just his view on this subject is pretty immovable.
But as the dude said "well, that's just like your opinion man"
-Jeff Lebowski
[deleted]
"I believe that drugs are basically of more use to the audience than to the artist. I think that the illusion of oneness with the universe, and absorption with the significance of every object in your environment, and the pervasive aura of peace and contentment is not the ideal state for an artist. It tranquilizes the creative personality, which thrives on conflict and on the clash and ferment of ideas. The artist's transcendence must be within his own work; he should not impose any artificial barriers between himself and the mainspring of his subconscious. One of the things that's turned me against LSD is that all the people I know who use it have a peculiar inability to distinguish between things that are really interesting and stimulating and things that appear to be so in the state of universal bliss that the drug induces on a "good" trip. They seem to completely lose their critical faculties and disengage themselves from some of the most stimulating areas of life. Perhaps when everything is beautiful, nothing is beautiful."---Kubrick
Mark Fisher on the 'repressive de-sublimation' (Marcuse), the death-wish of the hedonic threadmill of the stoner slave to consumerism:
Chronic demotivation
What is supposed to be good about dope? The problem with it is not just the resultant psychosis but the ACTUAL STATE it puts people into in the first place - chronically demotitvated, lethargic, filled with the kind of idiot porcine self-satisfaction that is the dialectical obverse of feeling paranoid. 'Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied....': not for stoners, whose only commitment is to the pleasure principle, to the shortest route to total relaxation. Thought, thought requires effort man, stop oppressing me, let me sit here and babble senselessly, coz that's creative, right, don't mess with my mojo, but buy me some munchies when you go to the shop, yeh?
What could be better proof of Lacan's claim that the nirvana principle - the drive towards the total extirpation of all tension - is not the death drive proper but merely the highest expression of the pleasure principle? Stoner stupefaction seeks only to remove tension, to become a zombified consumer, shambling to the fridge or the late-night garage to satisfy the constant craving of the insatiable Tungsten Carbide stomach of Kapital opened up in your organism by the dope.
The meat, and all it wants....
Thought, meanwhile, begins beyond the pleasure principle. As Houlbecq says in relation to Lovecraft, only those who are dissatisfied with life want to read and think. What from the perspective of those slaved to the pleasure principle is the introduction of a discordant and dysfunctional element ('hey, Infinite Thought, why you going to the library? Why don't you mong along here with us? "Come and play with us, Danny, FOREVER.... AND EVER") is from the POV of anti-naturalist kommunist konstructivism the positive libidinal motor of an ever-complicating process of intelligence-production.
I know someone will immediately leap on what I'm about to say and produce some counter-examples which will allegedly disprove it, but most stoners are males, aren't they? More than that, and here's why any empirical refutation won't wash, smoking makes you male. Self-satisfied, concerned only with yourself, unable to care about others even if you wanted to.
One of the many myths about stoners is that they are not aggressive. It's true that, in themselves, they don't FEEL agressive. Their blissed out idiot state of hyper-relaxed slackness precisely wipes away any feeling that would interrupt their communion with their own organism. But when this onanistic self-involvement is threatened, well, then we see how irascible, irritable and bad tempered stoners can be. Stoners demand the right to their own (passive) aggression, but detest any show of aggression from others, precisely because any antagonism - particularly political antagonism, my god antagonism and rationality, what could be more of a DOWNER? - disrupts their 'right' to take pleasure. Bad vibes, man.
I need hardly underline the point that young people voluntarily subordinating themselves to this pacification program is not exactly politically positive. It's not only because they all smoked it themselves when they lolled about on a full grant or because their kids are all smokers that the government is in favour of relaxing the legal penalties on the smoking of the supposedly harmless drug. It's because it is politically expedient. What could be better for the Komissars of Kapital than if half the population spends all their spare time (i.e. convalescence from reproduction of Kapital time) smoking dope and the other half spends it on SSRI anti-depressants?
Fukuyama's Brave New World inspired argument against SSRIs was that, in producing a feeling of wellbeing they remove the psychological motivation for action, for proving yourself. Though Fukuyama's argument is obviously advanced in the services of pro-Kapital enterprise, its logic can also be used by critics of it. You will not struggle against Kapital - you will not struggle against anything - if you are emolliated by narcotics.
Of course, the obvious counter-example that people will reach for is Rastas and dub. But the rasta relationship to dope was very different to that of most white workers toking on their time off, or students spending all day in what The Fall, gloriously, called 'a State-subsidized cannabis haze'. It was not only that the level of downpression to which the Rastas were subjected was much greater than the 'hard week' of the white worker, it was that their consumption of drugs was part of a disciplined religious and political ritual. Exactly the opposite, then, of those who turn to dope as a means of fugging out the world.
You see that is a well thought out response. I enjoy what he writes because we should always challenge our own views.
I've known people who fit what he is describing however I've met an equal or grater number who are the opposite.
That is why I feel the view to be to rigid.
It's. Like Luke Skywalker at the cave...you only go in with what you take with you.
"rigid"
" "At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view"---Gilbert Keith Chesterton
What gets lost in today's naïve, cynical and dark (postmodern) times are the crucial distinctions between belief, disbelief (belief in its negative mode, belief at a distance, self-deluding belief, the dominant mode of today's belief, especially among Liberalism, both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, the form of belief of the pseudo-atheist) and unbelief (non-belief, the most radical position of all, the most difficult, a position that ostensible 'atheists' shy away from ... this was Nietzsche's primary warning in all his main works, that though 'God is dead', everyone continues to believe, but now are totally unaware that they do, are smug zombies). Near-everyone today is a 'dis-believer', the laziest position of all to be in, the most duped of stances, as it is a position of not believing in anything while at the same time continuing to DO it, to do what they claim not to believe in ie that still believe but are unable to acknowledge it, unable to admit it, unable to confess that they still believe, instead adopting an aura of distance from it all ('ironic distanciation'). Here, 'atheism' is a pseudo-atheism, this subject now oblivious - unconscious - of their true beliefs, ending up claiming that they don't believe in anything that the do, in anything that they spend their entire lives doing. Why would they do this, why would they do things that they don't supposedly 'believe' in? Are they mad? Blind Robots? Mindless Zombies? Well ... we might wonder. Not quite, though, because it is this very air of distance, this sense of 'it's all just a game', that it's not to be taken seriously, that nothing should be taken seriously, that you should retain a 'healthy distance', a minimal remove, a fetishistic disavowal, that tragically ENABLES the conformism, the submission to the belief (the denied belief, the disavowed or repressed belief/desire/truth). The end result of such a stance is a nightmare world in which people deny doing what they are actually doing even as they are doing it eg "But I don't BELIEVE!!! I have no beliefs! So I don't believe in what I'm doing and therefore it doesn't really matter. Just ignore it! ... Even a serial killer can here be excused ("But I don't believe that I'm a serial killer! Just because you see me killing people doesn't mean I'm a serial killer! You must not believe that! Belief is too rigid! Belief is Evil. Don't believe what you see ... but accept what I say as you would the word of God!!!!!" ...
"What one sees today is a kind of "suspended" belief, a belief that can thrive only as not fully (publicly) admitted, as a private obscene secret. This suspended status of our beliefs accounts for the predominant "antidogmatic" stance: one should modestly accept that all our positions are relative, conditioned by contingent historical constellations, so that no one has definitive Solutions, just pragmatic temporary solutions. . . . The falsity of this stance was denounced by Gilbert Keith Chesterton [see quote at start of post]... Is the same falsity not clearly discernible in the rhetoric of many a postmodern deconstructionist? Is their apparently modest relativization of their own position not the mode of appearance of its very opposite, of privileging their own position of enunciation, so that one can effectively claim that the self-relativizing stance is a key ingredient of today's rhetorics of power? Compare the struggle and pain of the "fundamentalist" with the serene peace of the liberal democrat who, from a safe subjective position, ironically dismisses every fully pledged engagement, every "dogmatic" taking sides ...".----Zizek
[deleted]
Man, most of our great artists were 'total idiot zombies' then...Thank god we have the finger pointers to even things out and contribute their quality...er...imdb posts.
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride
This is hilarious.
You might want to try Kubricks "Barry Lyndon"
It's got a similar pace and great music, amazing visuals, although not much cosmic mystery.
Carl Sagans original "cosmos" had great music a leisurely pace, some decent visuals and it's educational.
Alot of the IMAX films have some beautiful imagery.
Jodorowsky's "dance of reality" is fascinating and trippy as is his "holy mountain" and "el topo" but his films are very surreal and may be off putting because there is some grotesque imagery mixed with the beautiful.
One that has a dream like feel is "Lost in Translation"
And Scarlett Johansson too.
The 1980 "Flash Gordon" is colorful camp with some fun music by Queen.
Mel Gibsons Apocolypto was very visually interesting.
I do have a thing for tropical settings.
One that has a dream like feel is "Lost in Translation"
The 1980 "Flash Gordon" is colorful camp with some fun music by Queen.
Mel Gibsons Apocolypto was very visually interesting.
The topic is called "Similar movies to 2001: ASO".
[deleted]
"countdown to zero, i dont have time to read your long posts,"
Are you suffering from attention deficit disorder?
"and you are argumentative so I m putting you on ignore."
Given that you are trolling this forum, responding with deliberate verbal abuse when your demented ravings are in any way challenged, you are now on DELETE. Go back to your Star Wars cartoons and Mel Gibson torture porn forums.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoners reject all complexity and retreat into cartoon infantilism, like calling the "Stargate" sequences as 'psychedelic'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"psychedlic was just a choice of words, dumbass, i just mean colourful. Get off your high horse."
It is you who is the pathetic 'dumbass', a basketcase who is desperate to dumb down and infantilize everything you regrettably come in contact with, one of the more obscene troll posters to have polluted this forum in quite a while. You might first need to learn some of the basics of word comprehension and spelling, before taking a course on why not all movies are children's cartoons, and on why being stoned will quickly destroy your precious few remaining brain cells.
Yes similar in that they are interesting while in an altered state...which I believe these are.
share