2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

[almy]

And, unlike most of today's sci-fi, as I recall there isn't a drop of blood in it (though it has been a few year since I've seen it)

[Kristin Simard]

Originally Posted by almy

And, unlike most of today's sci-fi, as I recall there isn't a drop of blood in it (though it has been a few year since I've seen it)

I don't recall blood, but there is killing. To say any more give away spoilers.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ScoBro828

And much like 2001 so many other movies have used aspects from that too. I don't mean to sound as a total cliche but they just don't make movies like that anymore.

Let's also not forget the visionaries who actually wrote the books... kind of feels like celebrating Peter Jackson w/o acknowledging Tolkein.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by mrdario64

It may sound like a cliche, but it really is true. I can't think of a great, intelligent SF movie made since Blade Runner / Close Encounters. In fact, I don't think films like these and 2001 could get made now. They're just too leisurely paced, and intelligent for today's modern multiplex audience. Shame really.

I really am convinced I grew up in one of the last, great times for movies (70's, early 80's).

Hard to argue that Gattaca was not an incredibly intelligent sci-fi. I mean in general I agree with you, but you have to give credit where it's due. You could also cite 1984 if you consider it sci-fi... doesn't get any more intelligent albeit depressing as heck.

Edit: I'm also gonna argue here that the first 2 Aliens movies were too dumbed down either... certainly not as cerebral as what we're discussing here but far better than what we're seeing now. Let's face it, people are freaking over TF.

[jdc115]

First of all, I probably agree with most of the above, it is a great move and since there are so many fans of Kubrick here, I'd be interested how they rate his films in order.

But if you are not a big fan of Kubrick and just know the title as it is often one of the "best ever" films, I would suggest you rent it. The effects have stood the test of time, they do not look old or cheesy as some movies from that era might but it is also a slow movie. There is no action, long periods of silence and you will spend a lot of time just watching a space capsule dock or somebody walking through the station.

I have had others sit through it only to think it was 2 hours of pure boredom and then 20 minutes of "what the hell???"

Ranking of his films
1. Clockwork Orange
2. Paths of Glory
3. Dr Strangelove
4. Shining
5. Full Metal Jacket
6. 2001
7. Lolita
I didn't really like Eyes Wide Shut but only saw it once when it was released. Will have to go back and watch it again.

The rest, I probably watched 15 to 20 years ago once (The Killing, Killer's Kiss, Berry Lyndon, and Spartacus) but hard for me to say as I can't remember too much about them. Never saw Fear and Desire as Kubrick was able to keep the public from viewing while he was still living. I wonder what steps he took before he past away to keep it from being released or viewed.

[mrdario64]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Hard to argue that Gattaca was not an incredibly intelligent sci-fi. I mean in general I agree with you, but you have to give credit where it's due. You could also cite 1984 if you consider it sci-fi... doesn't get any more intelligent albeit depressing as heck.

Edit: I'm also gonna argue here that the first 2 Aliens movies were too dumbed down either... certainly not as cerebral as what we're discussing here but far better than what we're seeing now.

I'll have to take your word about Gattaca. I've only seen it once and that was many moons ago. I seem to remember it being better than most though. Alien I'd forgotten about. I agree, slightly less cerebral, but much better than most current stuff. That also reminds me of Brainstorm, Altered States, and Videodrome. All intelligent, excellent SF movies which I'd love to see done right on Blu.

[ScoBro828]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Let's also not forget the visionaries who actually wrote the books... kind of feels like celebrating Peter Jackson w/o acknowledging Tolkein.

Very true! Makes you wonder why so many other stellar books are not made into movies but Hollywood keeps reinventing movies already made.

[ScoBro828]

Originally Posted by mrdario64

It may sound like a cliche, but it really is true. I can't think of a great, intelligent SF movie made since Blade Runner / Close Encounters. In fact, I don't think films like these and 2001 could get made now. They're just too leisurely paced, and intelligent for today's modern multiplex audience. Shame really.

I really am convinced I grew up in one of the last, great times for movies (70's, early 80's).

We have become a short attention span culture. Everything has to be slick and fast. A quick cut in lieu of a slow pan. My ex is 15 years older than me and there are honestly some movies she cannot watch due to the style of film making.

So many filmakers nowadays are by-products of the music video industry and it comes into play in movies. The art of filmmaking is only embraced by a few directors it seems.

[J6P]

Originally Posted by jdc115

(The Killing, Killer's Kiss, Berry Lyndon, and Spartacus) but hard for me to say as I can't remember too much about them.

Barry Lyndon! That one always slips my mind, but would be fantastic on blu-ray. It takes place in the 18th century, and Kubrick used Zeiss lenses that NASA contracted for the space program to film in very, very low light. That way he could shoot by candlelight alone. It is still the widest aperture ever filmed, I believe. I'd love to see a blu-ray edition drenched with all of that candlelight someday.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by ScoBro828

Very true! Makes you wonder why so many other stellar books are not made into movies but Hollywood keeps reinventing movies already made.

2001: A Space Odyssey was not based on the book, it was based on a short story called "The Sentinel" from Arthur C Clarke. Kubrick and Clarke cowrote the screen play and Clarke wrote the book at the same time as the making of the movie and then released afterwards. In this case, I don't think there can be much difference in their vision, as opposed to King and Kubrick (King hated Kubrick's Shining from what I understand).

[J6P]

Originally Posted by jdc115

(King hated Kubrick's Shining from what I understand).

I heard that too. He said it was his least favorite adaptation. Baffling.

[rjg]

Yeah i will probably rent them all first, hope blockbuster will have them. And if they are good will buy them

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by J6P

I heard that too. He said it was his least favorite adaptation. Baffling.

It is very baffling when you consider most of the adaptation of his horror novels are really bad. Some of the serious pieces were good like Stand By Me or Shawshank Redemption.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by jdc115

In this case, I don't think there can be much difference in their vision, as opposed to King and Kubrick (King hated Kubrick's Shining from what I understand).

I heard that but not the details of why? I never understood why he would..Kubrick captured the essence of that book ... to me it's a masterpiece ..and the only movie to capture the real spirit of his novels..Dead Zone was the only other one I enjoyed but it wasn't in the same league overall as The Shining.

[danielpwnz]

My stupid Wal-Mart had all of 10/23's new releases just sitting in boxes on a cart right in the DVD section. I was furiously looking through them for this and A Clockwork Orange, but all I could find was Home of the Brave and Scary Movie in terms of Blu-rays before they told me I couldn't look through them. I only looked through about half the boxes...I was so close!

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ps3andlovinit

I heard that but not the details of why? I never understood why he would..Kubrick captured the essence of that book ... to me it's a masterpiece ..and the only movie to capture the real spirit of his novels..Dead Zone was the only other one I enjoyed but it wasn't in the same league overall as The Shining.

Shawshank was great, but I agree with your point.

In general King is an overrated writer whose books get turned into horrible movies. There are exceptions however.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Shawshank was great, but I agree with your point.

In general King is an overrated writer whose books get turned into horrible movies. There are exceptions however.

I was a horror junkie in my younger days..never read Shawshank etc..so I should have qualified the "essence" as applying to the horror genre only since I have no knowledge of the others.

[BaronVH]

2001 is in my top 10 of all movies ever made. Same class as Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Cane, The Godfather, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The thing is that many, many people will not like it. It also does not spoon feed anything. You have to figure it out (and it may change on you). The only thing I can remotely compare it to in recent releases is The Fountain. Although, liking one is not a guarantee you would like the other. 2001 is also true science fiction. Star Wars and Star Trek are fantasies. 2001 is real science fiction. I will go so far to say that 2001 is one of the several movies that made me decide to go Blu-ray.

[Blu Titan]

This is one of my favorites movies. The music and the space views are an incredible hypnotic experience. A MUST get for me!

[doctorsteve]

You know I'm a little concerned... Yes, I only have a 27" tube tv, but I played 2001 the other day on my ps3 and damn! if it didn't look better than I remember the dvd looking before! I'm really curious if the blu-ray will be even better (theoretically I know it will, but it really popped the other day!).

Anyway, I have to bring up the 13th Floor for a pretty intelligent modern sci-fi flic. I really dug the twist.