• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

What are you watching now?

Just as a warning, there will be plenty of spoilers in my second movie I review in this post, and since I can't figure out the post code for this board they are there for all to see. So if you don't want Rain Man spoiled for just skip over it when you get to the bold title and rating.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)


So much has been written about this movie over the years, and upon viewing it one can understand why. Too often movies are heavy handed and want to do our thinking for us, they are in a way that complete antithesis of what the medium of film and interpretive art are supposed to be. 2001 is not a film that succumbs to the need to be heavy handed or to tell the audience what to think. That is also why 2001 is a very polarizing movie, there is no in-between, people either love it or they hate it. They either "get it" or they don't understand it. 2001 is all about questions, it is about who we were, what we are and what we can be. It is about stagnation and it is about progress. It is about how the smallest of events can bring about just as monumental of a change as the largest of events. In short, 2001 is about whatever you want it to be about. There are very few cue moments, moments where it is made definitively clear what is going on. And even those moments hinge upon how you have interpreted the moments prior and how you will interpret the moments that are to come.

Outside of the thinking and depth brought to the movie, there is also a sparseness to it and a sense of loneliness and desperation. The strive of man to advance and progress in their quests is played out both through operatic musical cues and through the long and lazy shots of our progression. Nothing is taken for granted, every moment is worked for and every moment works because of that. The lack of dialogue is most telling, because in this day and age the average movie going audience expects to be wowed, to have the story move along at a brisk pace and to always inform them of what is going on through a character you can relate to. 2001 certainly doesn't move at a brisk pace, it doesn't always inform us, nor does it give us a single character to relate to. The focus in 2001 is on the unknown, on questioning what you are seeing, not on the characters or their rather minor struggles in the grand scheme of things. Those musical cues I spoke of earlier are truly the backbone of the entire film. They are haunting when they need to be haunting, mundane when they must be mundane, and suspenseful throughout. In a lot of ways the music in 2001 reminded me of the music in The Proposition. Yes, 2001 is a great movie by itself, but without the musical cues it contains I don't believe in any way that it would be as profound or thought provoking as it ends up being. Change the music and you would change the mood and tone, and I can't think of any movie besides The Proposition that wasn't a musical and depended so much on its musical score.

Lastly there would be the camera work on display and the shot selection from Stanley Kubrick. Too often directors either go for the far too simplistic or the experimental when it isn't really needed. Kubrick mixes both in 2001 and the result is a stunningly beautiful look. You have the most simplistic of shots, lit perfectly and full of all you need to see and then they are gone. You have experimental type shots from odd angles that allow you to take in the surroundings and truly examine them because they present an aura of oddness to you so they must be examined. It all comes together to create a beautiful looking film with fantastic visuals that grab your attention from the get-go and never let go.

That was a lot to say something so simple, if you haven't, watch 2001. If you have, watch it again. Much like Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind or Det Sjunde Inseglet, there is so much to chew on with each repeated viewing that you didn't notice the first time around. Tremendous, tremendous movie, I really can't say enough about it.

P.S.: The old wrestling fan in me came out hardcore when 2001 first started and I couldn't get images of "Nature Boy" Ric Flair out of me head when his theme music was being played. It's funny how for as much as I've forgotten about pro wrestling since I got involved with real fighting, the theme music of the one wrestler I ever truly thought was amazing stays with me. Also, did Alien take some of their score from 2001, because i thought I heard some similarities, but I wasn't certain.

Rain Man (1988)

Rain Man is a movie that could be endlessly sappy, it could provide the happiest of endings and it could provide a miracle cure, thankfully, it doesn't. Rain Man ends the only way that it can end, with one man changing and the other staying the same. It ends with the brothers separated and with no cure for Raymond to be found. That and the journey of Cruise's Charlie are the strengths of Rain Man. The rest of the movie is honestly very cliche and very formulaic, but that's actually okay because it serves as the impetus for that ending and for Charlie to change.

There are two key scenes in Rain Man, bookmarks on the movie. In the beginning Charlie is overseeing the offloading of expensive cars, but he can't stay still, he has to move about and he has to make sure he maintains control over all he sees. This is where Raymond comes into play and the effect he has on Charlie is seen in the final moment of the movie. Charlie calls back to Raymond, and at that moments he realizes all he can do is tell Raymond goodbye and let him go because he doesn't have control over all he sees. So, he tells Raymond goodbye and stands there leisurely watching the train depart. The Charlie at the beginning of the movie would never have been able to do this, but the Charlie that has met Raymond and been affected by him can now partake in such actions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Tom Cruise is a very good actor that gets a whole lot of flack for reasons I'll never understand. Sure, he's an overbearing pompous jerk in real life, but that has nothing to do with what he does on the screen. He is an actor that as his career progressed was willing to take on many different roles and play them all quite differently showing great range in the process. I've always been a fan, and Rain Man was the first film of his that I saw where I envisioned him as more than just an action hero/heartthrob. His performance was the performance of the movie, surprisingly enough. Hoffman was good, but his role was rather simplistic and straight forward. There wasn't anything hidden behind his eyes or in his soul because Raymond was on display for all to see. Cruise had to be deep and nuanced in his role, he had to bring the humanity to the part to make you believe that he could be affected by his brother and that his brother could change him.

Not a greatest type movie, but a great movie nonetheless, and a movie that is often overlooked from its era. I understand that's due mostly to the stock nature of the underlying story, but the meat and potatoes of Rain Man is the change in Charlie and the fact that Raymond won't change and that dynamic is enough to make this movie one worth seeing.
 
Last edited:
I saw 2001 .. I'm not sure I got it, but I found it dreadfully, dreadfully boring.

I saw it again years later, and definitely got it .. and still found it dreadfull, dreadfully boring.

I understand that it is a milestone of filmmaking. I also understand just how amazing the special effects in the movie are, and how amazing the frank handling of scientific concepts in the movie is, especially for the time.

But, no amount of patriotic love for the Blue Danube Waltz could make me think of its endless stretches of "hypnotic" scenes as anything but a movie maker having way too much fun. They neither served the plot of the movie, nor did they give any further insights into the philosophical questions the story really is about.

While I'm all for superb effects and great music in a movie, I prefer it when they serve a purpose. So while I accept and back its placing in movie history, it's a movie will mostly watch with my finger on the fast-forward button, most of the time.

(But, I LOVED the book. And two of its three sequels. I actually also quite enjoyed the movie 2010)
 
I saw 2001 .. I'm not sure I got it, but I found it dreadfully, dreadfully boring.

I saw it again years later, and definitely got it .. and still found it dreadfull, dreadfully boring.

I understand that it is a milestone of filmmaking. I also understand just how amazing the special effects in the movie are, and how amazing the frank handling of scientific concepts in the movie is, especially for the time.

But, no amount of patriotic love for the Blue Danube Waltz could make me think of its endless stretches of "hypnotic" scenes as anything but a movie maker having way too much fun. They neither served the plot of the movie, nor did they give any further insights into the philosophical questions the story really is about.

While I'm all for superb effects and great music in a movie, I prefer it when they serve a purpose. So while I accept and back its placing in movie history, it's a movie will mostly watch with my finger on the fast-forward button, most of the time.

(But, I LOVED the book. And two of its three sequels. I actually also quite enjoyed the movie 2010)

I'm with you on all of this. I'm not a Kubrick fan as it is (though I did like The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.) I thought 2001 was boring as hell and Eyes Wide Shut was the stupidest POS weirdo crapfest I've seen since Gigli and Glitter.
 
I just watched a documentary called "This Film is Not Yet Rated." Fun stuff. It's rated NC-17 because it shows all the various clips that got movies rated NC-17 -- or got cut out to avoid the rating. It's a very interesting take on the MPAA, its incredible secrecy, and what amounts to censorship of our films in the US -- complete with allowing bloodless (i.e., consequence- less) shootings in PG-13 movies while showing a woman having an orgasm that lasts longer than a few seconds is NC-17. Also, gay sex -- no matter how tame -- is always rated more harshly.

And, of course, it's all legal because it's all "voluntary" -- you don't have to get your film rated. You just won't get it distributed until you do. You'll actually see 1st Amendment rights lawyers saying it would be better to have pure government censorship than this theoretically voluntary system, because at least there would be some transparency and accountability.

(Suddenly the concept of the homemade movie, shown on the internet, is even more appealing to me. Dr. Horrible forever!)
 
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a fun and interesting film. Anyone who likes movies should watch it, if they get the chance.

2001 is a fine film, and deserves its iconic status. I don't find it the least bit boring. It takes the right amount of time for things to play out naturally. It isn't designed to be a "action adventure" film, and keep you on the edge of your seat, with explosions, chases and such. It is philosophical, not pyroclastic. Now, if someone found it pretentious, that I would understand, as that criticism can be made of most anything trying to do what it does, but I think it works very well, and succeeds.

I still remember the first time I saw 2001. It had just come out, and was showing at the Cinerama in Detroit, 45 miles away. There was a show starting in 25 minutes, and my friends wanted to go, but thought it impossible. I told them I could do it, but they would be placing their lives in my hands... :eek: I had a new Plymouth Satellite, and I drove the freeway with the pedal to the floor. What can I say? I was 20 and foolish. But, we made it safely, and got there before the feature started. The second time I saw it, it was from the front row of the Hollywood Cinerama. :eek: :eek: :thumbsup:
 
Honestly I can't really understand sci-fi fans not loving 2001, but whatever. The "it's boring!" "not it's brilliant!" argument about this flick is as old and cliche as the many pop-culture references to it's "dawn of man" sequence.

Call me pretentious or whatever, but yes, it's my favorite movie ever (or at least tied w/ The Good The Bad and The Ugly), yes I'm a hardcore Kubrick fanatic, and yes over time I've even come to appreciate Eyes Wide Shut.

I don't even know how many times I've seen this thing, though of course the best viewing was at a movie theater with a restored printing, with the actor who played the main astronaut in the audience doing a Q&A/meet 'n' greet thing.
 
Honestly I can't really understand sci-fi fans not loving 2001, but whatever. The "it's boring!" "not it's brilliant!" argument about this flick is as old and cliche as the many pop-culture references to it's "dawn of man" sequence.

Call me pretentious or whatever, but yes, it's my favorite movie ever (or at least tied w/ The Good The Bad and The Ugly), yes I'm a hardcore Kubrick fanatic, and yes over time I've even come to appreciate Eyes Wide Shut.

I don't even know how many times I've seen this thing, though of course the best viewing was at a movie theater with a restored printing, with the actor who played the main astronaut in the audience doing a Q&A/meet 'n' greet thing.

It's been a while since I've seen 2001. I'd give it another shot, maybe. I think Kubrick has some great ideas, but he has serious issues with women. That doesn't play into my liking him or not, just more a mental note I make during every film I've seen of him. He and Robert Jordan should have gone bowling together so they could discuss their severe mismanagement of the female psyche.
 
It's been a while since I've seen 2001. I'd give it another shot, maybe. .

2001 was meant to be seen on the big screen, more than most any movie ever made. It simply can't have the proper impact on a 26" TV. So, if you are willing to give it another shot, find a friend with a big screen TV if you don't have one, preferably HD, rent the DVD, and sit close. Or, if you are lucky enough to live near a theater that might show it, see it there.
 
I just finished watching another documentary called "The Education of Shelby Knox." It's about a high school girl who gets drawn into a fight over what kind of sex education should be taught in the Lubbock, TX schools: abstinence-only or comprehensive. Guess which side wins. Guess how high Lubbock's teen pregnancy rates are...

Also of note: Shelby gradually comes to side with the gay-straight student alliance on campus, which gets formally banned by the school board. (The Westboro "God Hates Fags" Baptists show up and do their thing anyway.)

Kinda pisses me off, really...
 
Strictly speaking their goal is to get them into heaven, but they might very well agree that barefoot and pregnant wouldn't be a bad idea -- once they are safely married, of course!

The film opens with a wonderful quote: "Life in Lubbock, TX taught me two things: one is that God loves you and you're going to burn in Hell; the other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth and you should save it for someone you love." Kinda says it all.
 
Strictly speaking their goal is to get them into heaven, .

Speaking is the salient word there. I was referring to their unspoken, true goal.

And that opening quote shows clearly that their minds don't work well enough for cognitive dissonance to be a factor... :rolleyes: :LOL:
 
Well, I'd say that getting people into heaven is their primary conscious goal. Bringin' back the good ol' days when men were men (and white) and women were pregnant may be what's really driving them, though. Fear of change is one of their hallmarks after all.
 
Strictly speaking their goal is to get them into heaven, but they might very well agree that barefoot and pregnant wouldn't be a bad idea -- once they are safely married, of course!

The film opens with a wonderful quote: "Life in Lubbock, TX taught me two things: one is that God loves you and you're going to burn in Hell; the other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth and you should save it for someone you love." Kinda says it all.



What a wonderful quote:bolian: I may have to watch this.
 
Currently watching "The Prisoner" for the first time.

There are no words for how awesome this show is.
 
Saw the Keanu version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I don't know if I'll be much help. I tend to really enjoy most science fiction out there. This is no exception. I'm a huge Keanu fan (which usually gets me laughed out the door.) I really liked this movie. Never saw the original. Don't plan to. The message seemed very heavy-handed, but so what?

Uber effects, imho. Will Smith's son was also pretty good (as was Jennifer C.)
 
I haven't seen the new Day the Earth and don't plan because I'm of the complete opposite mind-set- love the original, don't like Keanu Reeves except for comedic value, and find most such remakes pointless. In fact, the original is heavy-handed anti-Cold War message, so I don't even know how this thing can work for modern times.



I've slowly started to check out the Masters of Horror series. This was an anthology show Showtime did a couple years back, where they'd have different directors make one-hour long movies. The idea is really great and I never had Showtime when this thing was on, but Netflix has the series on DVD and a lot of the episodes on their instant viewing feature (where you can watch on your computer, which I have hooked up to my living room plasma).
So far I watched one directed by Takashi Miike (which I think wasn't aired originally for being to graphic) and Jon Landis, and a couple more. So far I've found them all entertaining with of course varying degrees of quality.

Are there even any more anthology shows on TV? It's such a cool format. The Twilight Zone, Tales From the Dark Side- I miss being able to tune into a series never knowing what to expect.
 
I haven't seen the new Day the Earth and don't plan because I'm of the complete opposite mind-set- love the original, don't like Keanu Reeves except for comedic value, and find most such remakes pointless. In fact, the original is heavy-handed anti-Cold War message, so I don't even know how this thing can work for modern times.

They might do something utterly lame and cliched like make it about global warming... which would make no sense. Part of the reason Klaatu's people take such exception to our world's nuclear proliferation, is that if we as a race extend our reach out towards the stars while still being reckless with such things, it would have an intolerably negative effect on the races who have learned to be mature about their technology. It's a similar motivation to the aliens in The Abyss... they don't hate us, they just can't have such a destructive species running amok around the galaxy... so we either shape up or face the consequences.

If they made it about global warming that entire thread is gone. Global warming is only a threat to the planet you are on, so whilst you still could have a firm but benevolent species putting our house in order it becomes slightly less plausible and you lose the sense of intrigue.

I can't see Keanu being worthy of even unzipping the spaceboots of Michael Rennie's Klaatu.
 
Back
Top