2001 A Space Odyssey Movie Review pt3 (Trailer)

[johnnyrockerfella]

2001 sux! it fucking sux balls....... and ANYONE who likes it is an arse kissing psychophant... who knows fuck all about fuck all.... this movie BLOWS.....

[Eldeecue]

@johnnyrockerfella

They do tend to be more likely to be able to spell 'sycophant' correctly, though.

Jesus, man: a dictionary. It's not hard. It really, really _kills_ any hope you have of sounding smarter than someone else dead in the water.

[johnnyrockerfella]

@Eldeecue yeah so... i dont win first prize in the spelling bee contest... i still know when im bored watching movies lol.. from what i have read and seen... ppl praise this movie... just cuz everyone else does.. but when ya really annalyze it ...unbiasedly.. it blows... i even tried reading the book.. got up to about the part them monkeys stood around,, the steel object... i remember in the book it was described as having a unique sound as it hit the ground... something the monkeys never heard

[Chaostos]

@Eldeecue

"Grammar Nazi" skin doesnt help you sound smart.

movie blows btw

[charlesvan13]

For people like Matthew who hate this movie, one could recommend just watching the 30 or so minutes of it involving HAL. The movie could be considered a success with that character, although he's right that the rest of the movie is just watching things float in space.

They did the same thing with Star Trek The Motion Picture over 10 years later. They turned a 30min movie into 2 hours by just having the characters, and audience, sit around watching stuf float in space.

[SpanishBroomaker]

This is what I got from the movie, and I think all there was, humans evolve, there are no aliens, no gods, nothing but humans, humans struggling to evolve, and eventually evolve on their own to something bigger than earth.

By the way, Hal was a good character, the only one.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

@SpanishBroomaker

If there are nothing but humans struggling to evolve, then where the frell do the monoliths come from? Also, how do you allow for your account directly contradicting every other interpretation of the film, which tend to lean heavily on God and aliens?

[SpanishBroomaker]

@FuzzyNecromancer The monoliths are not literal (hint), they are symbolic milestones in human evolution. I mean if you missed that, you missed the whole movie.

[AwesomeCoasters]

as a giant Pink Floyd hardcore fan I suggest that you watch the final act of the film coupled with the original Meddle 23 minutes-long version of Echoes, it's 100% in sync

[greenpenguino]

2001 had been extensively criticized for its many scientific inaccuracies. Unlike scientifically sound films such as Star Wars and Star Trek, the film erroneously depicted space as a soundless environment, implying that outer space, in fact, consisted of a fictional substance known as a vacuum. Earth was presented as a spherical object in the film instead of being flat, a mistake that was especially embarrassing since the Columbus Hoax had been exposed for well over 100 years.

[yarealpoof]

@greenpenguino

ummm, I'm sorry...what exactly was "scientifically sound" about star wars?

[greenpenguino]

I was being sarcastic

[TheBucsareawesome1]

"If you had to make it up yourself it means the writters didn't know" WTF? it's called ambiguity you moron!

[FuzzyNecromancer]

@TheBucsareawesome1

"Ambiguity" means uncertainty between two possible outcomes, When a works is ambiguous, you're uncertain whether the truth of the matter is A or B, like "was this character murdered, or did he commit suicide?" "Was that horrible deed in the climax justified by the greater good, or was it motivated by petty revenge?" "Is the protagonist saying 'I love you' to his girlfriend, or to Big Brother?" A blank space to fill in your own meaning is NOT ambiguous.

[buc555]

@FuzzyNecromancer A question can have more than two possible answers, in this films case they are almost unlimited.

[ebaum1saik]

This guy cares too much about characters and plot. I take it he thinks avant garde films from the 1930s-1940s are not films either. How can they possibly be films if they are about nothing???

The point is moot though since 2001's point is glaringly obvious. It wants us to think about our relation to technology and to portend a new evolutionary step. Those points are not really debatable it is obvious. This is a film which is anti-pedantic, not anti-film.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

@ebaum1saik

If it is obvious, then why do you need to point it out for us? If it's obvious, why do other people believe it is about mankind's hubris in the face of God?

[Asher8328]

Overall, I like Mathew's reviews, but I could not disagree more with what he had to say about 2001, aka "the movie about nothing." 2001 is about many things, and not necessarily the same things to everyone. Mathew believes this lack of consensus as further proof that the movie is about nothing, which once again I think is completely wrong. It is an unorthodox way to develop a theme, but just because Kubrik purposely clouds the message(s) doesn't mean that he didn't have a message to tell.

[Ikarosus]

@Asher8328 Expect he said himself that he didnt. And it doesnt matter if there is a message, since 1. He didnt gave this message by telling a story, bnut by making long and boring scenes with nothing actualy happening in them. What deap message is he telling us by showing a guy walking somewhere for 5 minutes?

2. As Matthew said, its like making amovie about guy sitting on a chair for 2 hours and staring at wall. Hiding meaning of something is not hard, anyone can do that.

[marscaleb]

More and more I come to see that it is better to watch documentaries about this movie than to actually watch it.

What I would have to say in conclusion though, is that this isn't meant to be a movie, it is meant to be a work of art.

You cannot truly review it as a movie; you cannot review it for plot and characters. You can only review it for how it moves you, assume you go in with the proper mentality.

[YOURGODISNOWHERE]

I was wondering how he was going to go after a masterpiece like 2001. I agree with what he said for the most part, but one has to acknowledge that this movie is over 40 years old and NONE of those effects were done with CGI. I don't think I've ever seen such smooth and realistic depictions of space. Matthew touched on that, but I was hoping a little more credit would've been given for that.

[honolulu0409]

2001 raised questions about life, technology, the human being et cetera, and through this it helped me a bit more to understand life because it made me think about it, and this process is not over (till I die).

This is what "art" can do. For example giving new perspectives, new ideas like 2001. Film is art, I think we all agree in this. Film is capable of more than just entertaining you, giving you direct moral advice, or warning you against something.

[honolulu0409]

I know that it is satisfying for you, matthew, at least to "understand" films. It's impossible to fully understand life, but what you can do is to raise questions, discuss them and discuss possible answers. Call it thinking.

[snowman555555]

Matthew is obsesed with scripts and characters and that's why he failed in reviewing this movie. Now it turns out he's not even such a good character analyst afer all. HAL's behavior was not a result of a personality but on the very contrary. He was nothing but a computer blindly and mechanically following the instructions - not to reveal the mission objective to the crew. So when there was a danger they'll find out, he did literary everything to prevent that.

[mummra4ever]

Maybe Kubrick made it so that the audience would decide for themselves whether hal was a person or not therefore you can say that hal's actions were either based on conflicting orders or his fear of being shut down. That's the thing with Kubrick I think he was trying to get the audience to really think about they're watching.

[Maximara]

The problem is that the reason for HAL's behavior was NOT explained in 2001 but in 2010 some 16 YEARS later. Furthermore in 2010 Chandler explained that is was due to CONFLICTING orders that caused HAL go lose it--the SAME reason given in some oral traditions for Satan losing it.

[Maximara]

In these traditions God commanded Satan and the other Angels to bow to none but Himself but He considered Man so perfect that He commanded the Angels to bow down to His creation-the contradiction between these orders caused Satan like HAL to go crazy.

[snowman555555]

I wouldn't mess with the religion here. I think I read a different version in Messadié's Histoire génerale du diable, but I'm not sure.

[STG472]

But Matthew wants Jurassic park! And if its not Jurassic park he aint happy - hilarious. So his main thrust of criticism is film can be only one thing - Hollywood narrative and thats it.

Also dont misquote Clarke to support an argument whose only purpose is to make sure you can ignore everyone else's. Its sloppy and disingenuous.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

If he's misquoting Clarke, please explain how this was a misquote and not just a quote. How is he distorting it?

Matthew doesn't want just Hollywood narrative. He wants SOME narrative. I think he makes a good case that this film is no more meaningful than a Rorschach ink blot. People stare into the void until they see their own philosophical viewpoints reflected and think that's the work of Kubrik rather than their own postulating.

[STG472]

He is distorting it by saying that 'hey even the film makers agree with me its a film about nothing' which clearly they don't.

Matthew does want Hollywood, he says so himself by siting Jurassic Park as a good way to deal with science in cinema.

I think he makes a good case for people who dont enjoy thinking too much, have the attention span of a Knat and like their films spoon fed to them.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

Clearly they don't? It's not clear to me.

You might not always agree with confused matthew, but he does use EVIDENCE. He cites examples from films, and quotes from people involved with it.

He quoted the film-maker. It's your job to explain why that quote is out of context.

[ull129]

@FuzzyNecromancer He's using a strawman argument, I can just as easily say that what he meant in that quote was for the film to be ambiguous. Like Chase said in the video response, he took the quote out of context to say what he wanted it to say. You could also look at the quote Clark said that 2001 was about evolution.

[STG472]

Seeing as we are quoting to support arguments

'film operates on a level much closer to music and to painting than to printed word, and , of course, movies present the opportunity to convey complex concepts and abstractions without the traditional reliance on words'

Kubrick on why there only 40mins of dialogue in the 2 hours and 40mins of 2001

[ebaum1saik]

Great point. The visual composition is the most important part of a film.

[friction00815]

nothing nothing nothing more nothing

[MattinNC74]

I think you're review was pretty much head on.

Lots of overly lengthy exposition shots, and Hal.

[Reclaimer77]

I hate to tell you guys, but 2001 fails. Just because it's highly aclaimed doesn't make it a good movie. It has no dialogue to speak of, tells no story, really has no plot, and there are NO characters that we can care about because what little happens in the story has no impact on them.

We understand that Kubrik is making a philosophical point about mans place in the Universe, but 70% of the movie are just filler visuals designed to awe the audience instead of actually telling the story.

[Blizzard78]

So by the sounds of it. 2001 would make a great background noise for a get together with family and friends. Good music accompanied by great cinematography.

[InsidiousCorpus]

You don't need a guide to understand 2001. You just need Bill Hicks (oops).

[TheFireflyGuy]

Here.

[themanyouwanttobe]

I can't let you do that Matthew.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

@themanyouwanttobe

xD win

[mooseclamps]

Matthew has flat out embarrassed himself with these Space Odyssey Reviews. They are painful to watch.

[honolulu0409]

Pain, that's what I felt.

[u2atomicbomb]

You state Clarke's quote of posing more questions than the film answers. Any true fan of this film understands this. The interpretative material you received from viewers I'm sure did not answer every point in this film.I watch this film on a regular basis, everytime coming back with more interpretations/insights, I am not so naive as to believe I will ever be privy to every sign/symbol 2001 poses. Kubrick was going for something beyond standard cinema and I like many others believe he succeeded

[crshh]

The themes from the original Doctor Who and Frightenstein would go great with the psychadelic landscape as well.

[GrandDizzy]

Great review! :)

So glad I didn't waste my time watching this 2-hour "piece of art". I want a film to have good characters and a good story. I have no interest in spending 2 hours looking at art just for the sake of it.

I don't really see the point in a film whose purpose is to encourage the viewer to think, without promoting any specific conclusion. One may as well just look at a bunch of random photos while listening to music.

If you love this film, good for you. But I know would hate it.

[mummra4ever]

I don't think there's anything random about this movie or any of kubrick's other movies that I've seen. Like the monolith for example it helps the apes evolve and then dave into the starchild. That doesn't seem random to me more like a logical progression.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

How does apes to sentient apes and adult human to Fetus in Space seem like a logical progression? o.0

[mummra4ever]

I meant logical in the context of how sci-fi usually shows how people evolve into beings of energy and higher intelligence. The 2001 theme is played right after bowman's transformation as it was when the ape realised it could use the bone as a tool to kill showing that it had gained intelligence and with the repeat of the music for bowman the same can be said for him.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

Except that's not at all logical. People evolving into beings of energy and people gaining higher intelligence are two seperate ideas. Furthermore, we don't have any evidence within the film that the Star Baby is of higher intelligence, or a being of pure energy. It doesn't make evolutionary sense. The tool-using apes gained an adaptive advantage over their enemies, and they changed as a species. The adaptive advantage of a fetus-in-space is yet to be evidenced.

[mummra4ever]

It seems you're just choosing to ignore what I said. I said it was logical in THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE FICTION. We seen this kind of thing before like in star trek. I was talking about following it's own logic rather than conventional logic as in the real world there's no knowing how humans would evolve. And there's no reason why the two ideas can't go together. I also said the music suggests the connection with the ape and bowman which is something Kubrick did in his films.

[LawlingProductions]

Can someone tell me why ConfusedMatthew doesn't upload on youtube anymore? I feel like I missed out on something.

[Ryoku75]

Hes said it was because of copyrights.

[highwind8124]

robag88 on YouTube did a good analysis of the potential meanings of the symbols in the movie. Making the faith based conclusion that this film is about "nothing", that Kubrick simply decided to maliciously fart in our faces for fun, breaking his devotion to his record of making masterpieces, is quite a leap.

I personally can discern some of the themes simply through the film establishing its moods. This is not a mere coincidence.

[FuzzyNecromancer]

@highwind8124

It could be about "something' in terms of themes, but this film has no plot. The level of specific and often incompatable meanings that fans read into the film is the real leap of faith. The plot and meaning are contained almost entirely within the book "2001: A Space Oddessy", and a movie that doesn't make consistent sense unless you read the book is a bad movie.

[buc555]

@highwind8124 CM tried to dismiss all that stuff as "people seeing what they want to see".

[1701EarlGrey]

@buc555 and he is right

[buc555]

@1701EarlGrey I would say you could say it about anything.

[1701EarlGrey]

@buc555 Yes, but in this case he is indeed right. And to emphasise my point I like novels writen by Arthur C. Clarke - "Rama" series, "The Fountains of Paradise", "A Time Odyssey"... A also like most of Stanley Kubrick works - "Spartacus" is one of my all time favorite movie, but "2001"... well it is like failed scientific experiment, it just didn't work. Film without the story, without characters, with very slow pacing.

[InsidiousCorpus]

The actions that HAL takes to defend himself mirror our constant need for resource and security, and the actions man will take to get those resources. Hell, HAL's response to the space crew is exactly the same response as the monkey beating the other monkey to death. Same can be said with Dave. I would like to argue at length over this, but consider how little I've done here to connect the monkeys to the space crew, in comparison to the abundance of information on any single 2001 analysis.

[InsidiousCorpus]

(Cont.) You fail to mention that a monkey beats a second monkey to death with a bone. What about the film cut Kubrick makes from bone to satellite (that cut is overstated by a lot of people, I know).

And what about HAL? HAL's story is not simply a great subplot inside of an empty film with crap floating in space. HAL compliments the running theme of the evolution of man quite significantly, in fact. He is a result of man's desire to progress. Sometimes, this desire is foolish. (CONT.)

[InsidiousCorpus]

(Cont.) The fact that people have come up with different interpretations for the film's meaning does not by connection justify your conclusion that "the writers didn't know." That's utter nonsense. To understand why it's nonsense, think back to the monkey scene and your description of it. You left out something very significant from your review. You reduced the significant discovery (by our biological ancestors) of weapons (in the form of a bone) to "a bunch of monkeys fucking around." (Cont.)

[Gammu]

Seriously. Because a bunch of people on the internet wrote conflicting things, it makes the movie's writers clueless? This, plus mis-characterizing Clarke's quote, editing/looping the moon flying sequence to make it longer then saying 'you have to see it to believe it', etc. makes me wonder if he believes what he's saying, or he's just baiting people to join his website.

Everyone knows the movie is slow, and a three part review with almost no actual analysis adds nothing but page hits.

[InsidiousCorpus]

@Gammu

What are you replying to me for? I'm on your side on this one. I agree that Matthew's review was an absolute failure, with a whiny pretentious film criteria that he somehow formulated out of nothing and a quote mining of C. Clarke, who wrote the goddamn book I might add. But he's made blunders like this in the past, and his reviews aren't too bad if you can forgive these blunders.

[Gammu]

@InsidiousCorpus

I was agreeing with you, and got carried away...

Usually his reviews are worthwhile, and have some insight, even if I disagree. That's why this is esp. disappointing. I expect more than just being a contrarian (*yawn*) and going for obvious yuks.

[InsidiousCorpus]

@Gammu

Amen to that.

[Ryoku75]

I think his formula is that of what they use in most fims, its usually not even hidden very well in newer ones: Action, Exposition, Something happens, Drama, Action, End.

[Ryoku75]

I think he beleives what he's saying, and I did wonder if that sequence was looped but I think he did that to keep more silence for him to talk, that lack of an efforted analysis is what bothered me as "stuff floating in space" and a light show (what he called landscape) are nothing but I would've preffered less repetition, I may aswell skip sections of the video.

[Chaostos]

@InsidiousCorpus

you dont need to stare at black wall of nothing for 3 hours to understand that.

[NeoGradiusZ]

Great Review!!! This film Disappointed me so much. All my friends that say they like just say they like it. they never say why. Your review answers that question, because nothing happens at all. haha

[InsidiousCorpus]

I expected that you had something convincing to say about 2001. But this third part was, quite frankly, a disappointing rush. It seems that you've chucked the context of the film's creation completely out the window to support your argument.

It doesn't take an existential philosopher (let alone a person who, in your weak example, utilizes logical fallacy to defend Howard the Duck) to figure out that 2001's running theme is the evolution of man. It's actually pretty damn obvious. (cont.)

[Serdikhan]

Can you believe the rating this movie has on the IMDb. Why? How?

[IPA300]

If I were Kubrick, I would make the movie about HAL and the mission to Jupiter. He could have all the fancy music and great atmosphere and symbolism he wants. And for the people who "just don't get it", we would be entertained by the struggle between HAL and the crew. All the while exploring what it means to be human.

Goddamn it Kubrick! You had a great story but screwed it up with crap floating in space! *head desk*

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

2001 is a significant film in the history of visual Fx's and remember this film was released in 1968 just prior to Apollo 11, You have only to compare it to its contemporaries like the original Startrek series to see in retrospect how far ahead of its time 2001 ASO really was.

[micronoid]

Great review matthew, though i was hoping you'd give your thoughts on 2010 in comparison.

[link4723]

Although the scenes were good looking there really was not anything going on storywise.

[danieldb631]

So, this movie was basically a long special effects demonstration/slide show?

[fireresq7]

Good job Mathtew! I feel the same way about this movie!

[mummra4ever]

Even though I agree with most of your reviews I still somewhat don't agree with this one though I still appreciate your view on it. I'm wondering what did you think of, if you've seen it, the tv series the prisoner? Which also had a ambiguous ending.

[charlesvan13]

I liked the series "The Prisoner", but the ending episode "Fallout" sucked. It had an ambiguous "trippy" ending which explained nothing.

I heard Patrick McGuin had to hide out in the Scottish highlands for a few weeks because people were so pissed by that last episode.

[mummra4ever]

I kind of took the ending to mean that it was a metaphor for that maybe a part of him was keeping himself prisoner, maybe because a part of him was reluctant to resign from his job and in that sense he was a prisoner.

[moeezS]

That's really interesting.

[miserkocho]

certainly a boring movie by modern standards.the movie "moon" is a modern take on 2001..watch that instead... i bought howard the duck a month ago.lol

[moeezS]

Space Foetus or Turkey Sandwich?!

[bonecanoe86]

Great Review! I still have to say I enjoy watching this movie just for the visual effects, and I like to imagine what it could be about. But you are completely right in everything you said. Ultimately, this movie was really about nothing. I can't wait for your next review!

[King191912]

Why I dont agree with every review you do, I do agree with many, and a couple have saved me from seeing shit movies, and this is one. Thank you.

[TheSilhouette]

Your complaints about '2001' pretty much mirror my own feelings about contemporary visual "art".

Anymore it doesn't take any real talent, it's just all about marketing.

You can literally take anything and everything, put it in an artistic setting, and if you are good at suggesting the object (or lack thereof) has some sort of significance, the critics and other pseudo-intellectuals will call you a genius and go crazy trying to "interpret" its "deep meaning".

[TheSilhouette]

Damn it. Someone beat me to it.

[peteralig]

thats very true.....this movie became as big as it did purelly because of who directed it....instead of seeing it as a shit movie the fans and critics started making excuses and so called reasons as to what made this a masterpeace with deep meaning...i garante that if it was made my any lesser known directer it would'nt of got anywere near the support and prase that this movie got....srry about my shit spelling btw.

[RagingBalto]

It's less about meaning and more about Kubrick's talent and vision as a director. There is no film in the same UNIVERSE in terms of atmosphere as 2001. To appreciate 2001, you need to look beyond the surface and more into the realm of composition.

[TheSilhouette]

No one's complaining about what the movie HAS.

It's clearly a film that has awesome cinematography, and which (at points) makes good use of atmosphere.

The problem is with what the film DOESN'T. have. It doesn't have a story, and it doesn't have any characters (other than HAL, who's barely in the thing).

[moeezS]

Isn't the "realm of composition" just at surface level? Like, literally?

[smallestmansmind]

Like most of your reviews i disagree with almost everything you said. However, i do agree that with you that HAL was the only real character in the movie and was not really a villian but just a scared unstable being who in my opinion just wanted to live. I must admit that i was almost crying when he died.

[SpazzMaster8705]

Never saw it, never want to see it, and these reviews validate why.

Good job, sir! Can't wait for "Fight Club!" GO HOUSE!!!

[abridgedfanboy]

I'm actually not surprised you liked HAL; in a Jedi truth kind of way, he's actually the only truly human character in the story.

That said, I must thank you for finally coming out and saying what I've believed for years: being vague for vagueness's sake is not deep or interesting, it's lazy. Coming back to Citizen Kane, that film didn't hold anyone's hand, but the symbolism in Kane actually connected to the idea of the film, which was itself had very clear messages.

[captain5enterprise]

lol crap floating in space needed 2 parts?

[TheKnightOf0]

I know that this is completely off subject, but you strike me as a House fan.

Back on subject..... Since this movie is about nothing, I really have nothing to say.

[confusedmatthew]

You're very perceptive. House rocks!

[Optics233]

Great review! This movie is incredibly overrated and i'm glad to see someone intelligent revealing it for what it is for once. (Nothing.)

[Firelordzerien]

so wait if it's a movie about nothing, then does that make it the seinfeld of movies?

[100GeorgeSPatton]

Seinfileld had storys, it really was about something. Just everyday life.

[dylan9094]

I strongly disagree my good sir, but I respect your opinion, as always.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

You've redeemed yourself by expressing your love for HAL.

All is forgiven, Matthew!

[khfanboy666]

Thank you, I'm glad you didn't hate the Hal segment. Whenever I watch this movie I skip to that part and I stop it as soon as it's over. One thing though Matthew. You say you can't be scared by Hal in a physical sense....... I beg to differ. I direct you to the scene where Hal posesses the shuttle thing and he turns around, the camera quickly cut zooms into the red eye scared the shit outta me now and forever

Have you thought about reviewing the

sequel 2010, Hal comes back

Big Black Bricks

[highwind8124]

I think there's a certain shock value CM goes for by trying to pop a balloon, so to speak, to show that a movie is just all air. I think he's too eager to reach that conclusion.

Clarke not wanting you to COMPLETELY understand the movie doesn't mean there was nothing to understand. While different interpretations can be taken, there is a profoundness being established, if only in mood, that Howard the Duck simply doesn't.

Showing the enormity of traveling to infinite/beyond was awesome.

[JunkyardBreadfruit]

It's not like you have to stretch to see a movie where nothing happens and nothing is achived and say "This is a movie about nothing."

The real question is whether someone watching this without already knowing it's supposed to be a masterpiece would enjoy it. My guess: Probably not.

[RagingBalto]

On a side note, this movie was quite recently remade for dumbasses. It was called "Stealth".

[grandtheftauto5555]

hey mattew doyou hate star trek the motion picture it e same thing except worst effects

[confusedmatthew]

2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek: The Motion Picture are the same movie. If you've seen my 2001 review, you've seen my Motion Picture review.

[grandtheftauto5555]

i think the dirctor of that flim said space odyssey is famous let make that oh and we have to do a star trek flim too uhhh yeah lets put both of those together im sure it will be good. and a result is a bad star trek movie

[grandtheftauto5555]

did star trek the motion picture piss you off more than star trek generations?

[jfridy]

Generations had more stuff happen. At least you could watch it and not be bored waiting for the plot to catch up to the film.

[grandtheftauto5555]

good point but star trek generation got populare and that makes me hate it more

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

StarTrek TMP script was originally a 40 minute tv pilot that was stretched out into a 2 hour movie.

[ProphetTenebrae]

I believe that the explanation for HAL's behaviour wasn't actually because he was a person, per se - but rather that it's all a function of an inherent conflict between his hard wired need to be honest with the crew vs. the mission requiring him to withhold information.

[SeventhHanyou]

I actually share your opinion about the beginning of the movie, but I found myself disagreeing with you on bits of the third part.

I still think you make fantastic points, and I really like your point at the end of the review about deliberate ambiguity. It's the very same problem I had with the Matrix films (which I think you also mention)...be as deep as you like, but don't just BS the audience.

It's good to see someone call the writers/director out on this.

[RagingBalto]

The appeal of this film lies within Kubrick's vision as a director. The way the shots change, the way each piece of set design is depicted (such as the zero gravity running track), the overall feeling of mystery and ambiguity, etc. Like a piece of abstract art, its more obvious features can be off-putting, but the true beauty lies beyond the obvious. You're a great script analyzer, Matthew. The problem is that script isn't where the appeal lies.

cont...

[RagingBalto]

If I weren't so cheap, I'd request a Clockwork Orange review. Like 2001, there is a wealth of brilliantly executed symbolism, but there is an accessible yet thought-provoking script to lessen the ambiguity.

[Ryoku75]

Avoiding paying $25 for a review ain't "cheap", especially when you, I, or others could do it for free.

[genrlcvr]

But that's just it. Some versions of "abstract art" (not saying all of abstract art, but when we're talking about paintings of e.g.,a mishmash squares and circles and triangles) really do, as conf. mttw says for most of this movie's writing, take no talent to create and really mean nothing. The meaning is made-up by "expert-analyzers," who really just speculate, with no way of a true evidence-based analysis.

[RagingBalto]

I'm not talking about the meaning. I'm talking about the film as a testament to Kubrick's diecrtoral vision. I can name more than 100 shots from this movie I'd want to frame on my wall. Mix that with actual motion and perfectly synchronized music and you have an outstanding achievement.

[typeNtardis]

"His reviews will take you farther than the film will ever go..."

Wait a minute, "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite..."

vs...

"Nothing. Nothing. More Nothing."

Hehe... just playing. Hilarious review. I'm going to have to watch this movie again someday, just to see if I can find a single reason to disagree even in part.

The Clarke quote was telling, I didn't know that.

Great review as always.

[unassumption]

it makes you dangle in space :P

[AcidHead27]

Thanks for putting up the third part so quick :D

[confusedmatthew]

I figured I'd make up for the gap between part I and II. Also, a lot of people want to see the Jaws: The Revenge review, which will be coming in a few days.

[Ryoku75]

That'll be interesting, did you like Jaws or hate it?

[confusedmatthew]

You'll find out ;)

[Ryoku75]

You trying to make a philisophical interpertation of Howard the Duck was a good example of whats done with this film and Star Wars, yes even the prequels. Others interpertations don't make a film better or worse it just molds their opinions. I'd like to know why a film where litteraly hardly anything happens gets philisophical relations but others with loads of stuff happening don't. I really enjoyed your literal enterpertation of this film and you weren't "tricked" by the lights or music.

[mrnacj]

@Ryoku75

What is art?

[Ryoku75]

Something thats visually pleasing to the eye, also a subject in schools and colleges.

[mrnacj]

Something thats visually pleasing to the eye is called aesthetic, its not necessarily art. Art is not defined as a subject that is taught either. What you're telling me is that the definition of a subject is the teaching of said subject. This makes no sense. (Sorry if i'm coming if in a negative manner.) I was trying to make the point that this movie is art. It is a film that goes beyond the "rules" of most films but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. It just makes it different.

[Ryoku75]

Agreed, its like art except longer and I can't look at it on google images, I have to watch it.

[mrnacj]

I'm not saying you have to like it...but you should at least appreciate it for its artistic merits in its amazing cinematography. It's not LIKE art...it IS art.

[Ryoku75]

Oh I appreciate the music, but its hard for me to appreciate a film I haven't seen.

[MikeRyu]

Anger. Pain. Fear. Aggression.

Watercolours?

[Jacestarwind]

Sweet can't wait, keep up the good work!

[abridgedfanboy]

LOL. I'm amazed Jaws: The Revenge wasn't on your shit list already. XD