MovieChat Forums > TheBlackWaffle > Replies
TheBlackWaffle's Replies
Also, the phrase is “get off your high horse”, so you might want to edit that for clarification. Next time, just do a quick spelling and grammar check before submitting your reply. The homophobia is bad enough...there’s no sense embarrassing yourself in other ways.
Since when does not being homophobic equate to riding a high horse? Frankly, it’s unbelievable that this conversation is even happening in the year 2018.
If you’d prefer a conventional romance about conventional characters, then simply watch 98.3% of all other films ever made. Problem solved.
This is an unbelievably childish comment. Grow up.
It’s not about being poisoned, it’s about being incapacitated. Only once he’s been rendered helpless is he able to give up control and be tended to in the way that the softer aspects of his nature so obviously crave. Also, she’s not “poisoning” him because she wants to kill him. She’s “poisoning” him so that he’ll allow her to truly love him, which in turn allows herself to be truly loved. I think it’s a beautiful film.
This made me laugh out loud really, really hard.
I give it an 8/10.
Just saw The Post last night. Good call. Fuck you, Disney.
What great movies are you talking about?
Agreed.
Yeah, I agree. This is a solid little movie all around.
It’s not a theory. He’s dead. He’s filling us in on what we need to know from the afterlife. Audiences of the time never would have questioned it.
No one is forcing you to watch those “loudmouth actors”.
That’s because the budget was only thirty million, and it’s about American soldiers fighting terrorists. Red state people eat this crap up like it’s caviar, and studio execs know that. I’m being dead serious when I say that they could have actual hamsters playing the lead roles, and it would still turn a profit.
Besides, can you imagine how happy the producers were when they realized they wouldn’t have to pay the salary of a Matt Damon or a Bradley Cooper? It makes zero difference if the end result is watchable or not...it’s all about return on investment.
I don’t know the websites you’re referring to, but I remember thinking the film was pretty cut and dry upon first viewing. Not cut and dry in the way that The Nutty Professor is cut and dry, but things are pretty clear if you pay attention. The black monolith affects change. It allows the person/species touching it to progress to the next evolutionary step at a much faster rate than they would have on their own.
But alright, you’re not a fan. To each their own, I guess. That said, you should still read the book. Because it’s great.
In my opinion, 2001 is among only a handful of films that could literally be projected onto the wall of a museum, played on a neverending loop and be perfectly at home amongst the greatest works of the 20th century (regardless of artistic medium).
As for the film’s plot, I’m genuinely curious...what is it that you don’t understand/find entertaining? I honestly can’t think of any other film that is more ambitious, awe-inspiring and just straight-up gorgeous in terms of its visuals. In fact, I do my best to be first in line every time it plays in an actual theater.
Do you like the movie? If so, then what difference does it really make? Dogs can sense terminators, just like certain animals can sense earthquakes before they happen. How they’re able to sense them is still a matter of speculation amongst scientists, but that doesn’t make it any less “tied to reality”. Also, an answer to the dog situation isn’t necessary for the viewer to possess a thorough understanding of the plot, thus it’s irrelevant. Long story short, enjoy speculating. That’s part of the fun in science fiction. Besides, having answers spoon fed to you is for babies. Grown men drink beer and come to their own conclusions.
“The whole point of movies” is to entertain? Let me ask you this...when you go to a museum, are you of the opinion that the paintings/sculptures/photography/whatever else is there solely to “entertain” you? I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but if your answer is yes, then I think you need to examine the role of art a little more thoroughly. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is not a Jackie Chan action comedy. While many scenes are indeed entertaining, the film is functioning on a far more cerebral level, and will only reward you if you’re willing to be patient and question the artist’s intent.
I already told you exactly what the scene is about, and no, it’s not just my opinion. That is literally what is happening in the scene. Dave is being transported. The “psychedelic imagery” is a “gate” through both space and time which Dave is passing through. You see it because Dave sees it, because it’s actually there. It has nothing to do with drugs or being “fashionable”. Sure, Kubrick and Clarke don’t spoon feed you, but they’re also not being ambiguous.
Eastwood has directed a shockingly high amount of shitty movies throughout his career. For every Million Dollar Baby, there have been at least five Firefoxes.
And no, he can’t do any project that he fancies. The man struggled like mad to get Gran Torino made, and that’s AFTER winning multiple Academy Awards. Just because everyone loves the old bastard, that doesn’t make him a Cameron, a Spielberg or a Nolan when it comes to getting projects greenlit.