I Pit 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 2nd-most tedious and boring movie ever made. Perhaps I should ask Mods to move this to BBQ Pit so I can say “Fk*ng Boring and any of you who like it are Idts.”)
In the past few years I’ve binged on watching movies and TV series. (Many of my choices were based on discussions right here in SDMB Cafe Society – thanks for the excellent suggestions!)
I suffer from a perverse nostalgia where I often want to re-watch an old classic rather than try a new movie. I had a vaguely good memory of 2001 – I recall a trip to San Francisco with my first real girlfriend to watch it – so I clicked and viewed.
Wow! It was almost impossible to watch. I’m at a loss to understand why anyone ever liked that movie. Sometimes when a movie is too slow, I run it at 140% speed, but this one goes far too slowly even at triple-speed. I’m sure some in the 1960’s were delighted to watch the guy Skype to his daughter. But why do we need to listen to their long inane conversation?
In fact the only reason I skimmed the entirety is I wanted to see the interesting message “Attempt no landings on Europa.” It never came – I think it must be from 2010: Odyssey Two. :smack:
I write that 2001 is only the 2nd-most tedious movie ever. I recall thinking, when George Clooney’s Ocean’s Eleven came out, “I’m sure it’s not as good as the Rat Pack’s version.” Blame my perverse nostalgia (“The grass was greener back in the day … when I was young and foolish.”) I rewatched the original Ocean’s Eleven. Wow! It makes 2001 almost interesting by comparison. Every incident and every conversation is totally devoid of interest or intelligence. The cast includes three renowned singers but even that was total failure. I assume “Eee O Eleven” is the worst song Sammy Davis, Jr. ever sang.
Of course these are not just two isolated examples. I was practically in love with Emma Peel when I was young, so I rewatched one episode of the old Avengers. I don’t think I’ll ever bother with another.
Not all movies have to be Die Hard or Star Wars. There’s nothing wrong with those movies of course. All movies are art. Some art intends to convey a high energy fight for survival, or an action packed space war. 2001 is the story of man’s evolution from beast to a new being. It takes it’s time on purpose, because evolution is slow. It wants you to consider the present state of humanity, and where we are going. I agree, it’s not the kind of film I put on when I feel like being entertained, but I do adore it, because sometimes there’s real value in just being still, taking your time, and contemplating what millions of years can do to a species.
Also, it’s one of the most beautiful looking movies ever made. I will hear no words against this.
2001 is certainly one of the slowest-paced movies ever made. I can see how one might mistake this for “boring”, but it’s actually completely different.
I first saw it the week it came out, in New York City. I was a big SF fan and, for the first time I could remember, a major studio made a science fiction movie.
I was disappointed. Not in the slowness, but in the ending, which I thought was metaphysical crap (remember, I was 16 at the time).
Years later, I watched it again. I appreciated it a lot more and realized what went wrong: Kubrick had painted himself in a corner, needing some sort of grand revelation to make it all work. Not having one, he punted and gave a light show. It was the beginning of “bright flashing lights” movies – where special effects substituted for good storytelling.
I appreciate the movie, but the ending is basically a total failure on all counts except for looking cool and pretty.
I can appreciate the long scenes during the trip to the moon. Too many other parts of the film were very slow. The final sequence was visually stunning in 1968 but still had a WTF feel to it. Excellent but flawed movie.
My wife said the same thing about Lawrence of Arabia.
When I saw the restored version (20 extra minutes!), I didn’t want it to end - even after almost 4 hours, I still wanted more.
Same thing with 2001 - every wonderful minute is a treasure.
Well, from when the tossed bone in the air turned into a space shuttle until when Bowman entered the monolith and it got all psychedelic, the movie was pretty much all HARD science fiction. And that was rare for a SF movie at that time. And it looks like they put a lot of money into it also, and that was rare for SF then too.
I’m pretty sure that Barry Lyndon and Away from Her are far more slow and dull than 2001. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if 2001 moves along at a faster pace than Once Upon a Time in the West (though I do like OUTW).
Wow! So I wasn’t the first to find it boring enough for a thread, and with almost the same title. I suppose I should have done a search and just bumped that thread.
Lawrence of Arabia is a great movie, though it starts dragging a little toward the end.
… But 2001 still stinks.
I wonder why you and I agree on the one and oppose on the other. Perhaps part of the reason is that Lawrence has great acting and dialog. HAL is the only character in 2001 with a few good lines.
2001 is terrible. The most fun I have with it now is asking Siri to open the pod-bay doors. Which makes the kids laugh like loons and still doesn’t get me back the eternity I spent watching the thing in the first place.
I’m not really a fan of science fiction, and my attention span is usually not geared towards slow-burn movies, but the one time I saw 2001 (about 10-15 years ago), I was absolutely enraptured. Just a gorgeous film, through and through.
If you know anything about Arthur C. Clarke (and I did when I saw 2001 when it opened) you’ll know that the end is integral to the beginning, and the whole point.
Today we’ve all used Skype and talked to computers. Back then I used a Picturephone at the NY World’s Fair, but not many of us had. Besides being beautiful (I think Yuri Gagarin said that 2001 made him feel he was back in space) it set up a hard science fiction realistic base for the beyond the infinite stuff before.
The aliens were as far ahead of Bowman as Bowman was ahead of Moonwatcher - perhaps more. 2001 showed it the best it ever got shown. Kind of like if Star Trek really showed Q, not his human persona and a few magic tricks.
Yeah, attention spans these days have gotten so short I’m not surprised people find 2001 boring. My suggestion is to stop watching TV that cuts every two seconds and listen to Eroica or something that requires extended listening.
2010, btw, was a good movie, but made very clear the difference between a good movie and a work of genius.
And I watched 2001 straight, by the way. In Cinerama.
I suppose I should have done a search and just bumped that thread.