MovieChat Forums > fleischwolf > Replies
fleischwolf's Replies
To call it a comedy per se would be stupid, parts of it are absolutely disturbing. But Kubrick had a dark sense of humour, some scenes are really funny. I mean, the "FOOD...alright" scene is absolute hilarious.
Right, because in the novel this was the future, since it was written in the early 60s.
I'd say you're stereotyping a bit. This movie was made before I was born, yet I'd say that I would "get it". Of course there's loads of ignorant idiots among Millenials, but there where equally many among the Gen Xers. Remember Gen Xers where the ones ushering in the absolute retardation of Cinema with the likes of Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, Wayans Brothers and Adam Sandler.
Not being ignorant and actually educating yourself about cinema is not so much a question of age but intellect and interest.
It looks absolute magnificent. What hipster would not give his left nut for getting his apartment decorated like this and hang out in the Korova Milk Bar.
Yeah, like I would know the countless boards I posted on and threads from years ago, that are on page whatever. :)
It was kinda like chemical castrations for sex offenders. Sexual desire is of course a huge drive for crimes like rape.
Whatever floats your boat, I'd say. As long as all involved are into it... :)
That and The Taking of Pelham 123.
Hardy Krüger is from Berlin and nowhere near where Walz is from (Vienna).
The accent you hear is more or less a rather dialect free standard German (kind of like Received Pronunciation in English). It doesn't have a regional flavour to it.
Which is funny, because in Inglorious Basterds he say's that he is from the "Austrian Alps". Not only would no Nazi at that time call it "Austria", it was called "Ostmark" (Eastern Mark). But people in that region have a very thick accent, which Walz didn't display at all.
Arnold is from Styria, from a rural upbringing, so his accent is very thick, when he speaks German. Like in English speaking countries, accents in German speaking countries not only depend on the region, but also on education and "class".
It's one of his greatest, because it's not a typical De Niro Role. He's not playing a tough guy or a crook, he plays a very awkward bumbling outcast. Absolutely brilliant.
There are some very funny scenes, like when Rupert tries to record and his Mum constantly interrupts, some scenes with Marsha are also really funny. But on the whole it is very dark humour that also has a very tragic streak to it. Especially when Rupert does his stand up routine and all these jokes he brings are actually very tragic stuff that happened to him IRL.
Actually it's the fellow kidnapper that gets fed to the wood chipper.
Absolutely! It's an absolute master piece. Also Robert De Niro's greatest performance, shows that he's not a one trick pony!
I don't know, I really liked Cruising, although it's not a perfect film.
Also, Bug and Killer Joe where both terrific. They're not like his earlier work, more like stage play, especiall Bug, but thought both where great.
Now, Coppola and Scott, I agree, Scotts last great movie being Blade Runner and Coppolas Apocalypse Now, even though Dracula was a stunningly beautiful film, only harmed by stupid casting (Ryder and especially Reeves).
And the ending in Sorcerer was terrific! I mean, you think he's made it and then you see these 2 guys getting out of the car. Punch in the gut! Absolutely great!
Because 2001 was directed by Kubrick, one of the greatest Geniuses in cinema history and the other was made by Hyams, the director of Sudden Death and End of Days.
But the worst disappointment is the plot revolving around HAL. Now, in 2001 the fascinating thing about HAL is that you're not sure how human he is. How sentient. The reason for his actions could well be interpreted as him becoming too human! He even proudly boasts that no computer of the 9000 series ever made a mistake. Now what is a source of making a mistake in humans? Right, hubris! Also, when he starts getting homicidal, what is the reason of that? Right, self preservation. Because he spies on Frank and Dave (due to another human emotion, suspicion and paranoia) he learns that he is about to be shut down. While the reason he gives Dave for his action is that he thinks the mission would be jeopardised, the real reason is self preservation and fear of death. He even says so, when Dave dissembles him („I'm afraid, Dave“, such a disturbing scene).
And what do we get in 2010? Oh, it's conflicting information due to the order for him to lie. So, a literal „glitch in the program“. What a letdown. All the implications of A.I. and human condition gone.
The technical aspects: So 2001 is known for his accuracy of space travel and physics. The iconic shot of Frank running inside the wheel are not only mindbogglingly well done, but also made sense. While they tried to have something similar awe inspiring in 2010 with the space walk the realistic feel and the great thought being put into how things work are nowhere to be seen here. Suddenly there's sound in space (though I admit, it was done for artistic reasons to have sound here, like in so many other films). And now there's gravity everywhere! In the podbay, on the Leonov, everywhere, without a reason. But then, in an inexcusable stupid scene suddenly Floyd picks up a pencil and put it in midair. What? He even picked it up, it was lying there, why suddenly the zero gravity? Did they put any thought into that?
The acting: One of the most intriguing aspects of 2001 is the coldness and detached feeling to the humans. It's sort of intriguing that the most human in the movie is actually a machine. Compare this to 2010 which couldn't be more Hollywood in comparison. The recasting of Floyd with Scheider (who I love in other films like Jaws and French Connection) and his cheesy rants and outbursts just takes so much away from the experience and just makes this so generic. Others like Lithgow and Balaban don't help either.
The actual plot: So another thing that was so fascinating about 2001 was the ambiguity of the plot. While what it depicts is fascinating on its own, the scope of the movie is so much larger. Some things are left ambiguous and not shown, because it is too big for a human to comprehend. The aliens are so much beyond the imagination of humans that any depiction of them would be a disappointment. Also, the fascination of human evolution and the destiny of mankind. Now, what do we have in 2010? Right, they want to turn Jupiter into a sun and inhabit Europa with Alien life. While certainly not in the same scope as that of 2001 it's intriguing (though the existence of a second sun in our Solar System would wrack havoc on life on Earth). But the way it is depicted. The way it anthropomorphises the Aliens („Something wonderful is about to happen“) as some sort of benevolent deities is just cringe worthy.
There's no point in debating taste and if you enjoy this film that's great for you. However I can't comprehend why anyone would think that this forgetable uninspired flick is better than Kubricks timeless masterpiece.
The director: Look, I don't hate on Peter Hyams and following in the footsteps of one of the greatest directors ever and on of the most revered films ever is no enviable task for anyone. But really, he is a worksman director at best. His best work are just ok movies like Capricorn One or Outland, when he's at his worst he produces stinkers like Sudden Death, The Relic or End of Days. But really, to give him the sequel to a film as artistic and sublime as 2001? At least give it to someone like David Lynch or someone like that, there maybe something interesting coming out, not such a run of the mill Hollywood fare.
The Look of the Film: So this is something that's not even up for debate. Kubricks film looks MINDBLOWING even today. The shots look impeccable, totally realistic and still hold up. The merging of the stunning visuals with the classical music is genius and ingrained in the public mind. What did 2010 have? Not much. It really looks dated in its setdesign and the way it's shot. Again apart from the haircuts and some of the womens customs nothing looks 60s in 2001. It's truly a timeless film and a work of art.
The politics: Now, I don't pretend like Kubrick was psychic and foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, yet is was a stroke of genius to not mention it or the cold war in 2001. We see Russians on the space station and Floyd seems to be on friendly terms with them. He's not sharing secrets with them, like he wouldn't with any other country, but there's nothing to indicate that there's a cold war going on. Now in 2010 with the Cold War being at the core of the story it dates the film horribly and sets it firmly in the 80s.