It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You are not wrong. Originally, the film was going to explain a lot of things; there was even a voice-over narration. Kubrick, ever the artist looking for something special, then decided to cut it all out and leave it to us to figure things out on our own, without there necessarily being a "definitive" answer. Some people see the monoliths as the "hand of God", others see it as something else entirely. And that's fine.
2001 is not a film to just see once, IMO. It gives and continues to give upon multiple viewings. And I think the film makes at least one thing clear, namely the fact that whenever a monolith appears, Man makes a giant leap forward.
I did enjoy the film prior to reading the book, quite a lot, in fact. The mystery intrigued me. Then Clarke supplied me with the "correct" answer (which I still could've ignored if so desired) and while most of the mystery was now broken, the satisfaction of expanding the story of 2001 with specific details made it all worth it. But I don't think it's mandatory to read any book in order to enjoy the film. It may become something akin to a David Lynch experience, with not a lot of explaining happening at all, but the visual language can fill in enough blanks. Themes of birth and rebirth, of maturing and evolving run through the entire film. And the monoliths, while elusive, clearly connect the various stages in our advancement as a species. Who or what put them there, is another thing entirely, and yes, you have to read Clarke's book in order to find out what he and Kubrick had in mind. But it really is a standalone film in my humble opinion, just not one that literalises all the details. ;-)
This is indeed the main reason, I think, why some love the film while others don't. Upon its release, some critics praised 2001 while others left the theatre angry, openly wondering what the bleep this film was all about. You're probably right that 2001 is not for everyone. Anyone who's looking for a conventional type of storytelling may find 2001 tedious and even boring. (Lest I come off as a pretentious jerk who frowns upon "normal" films, let me clarify that I first merely accepted 2001 for what it was before I really started loving the film; I wasn't actively pursuing something of specific artistic merit.)
Kubrick had wanted to make the proverbial great science fiction film, the film to end all other science fiction films. Let's not forget what had come before. With some exceptions (Forbidden Planet, ...), most genre films had been either corny, shlocky, pandering to the lowest common denominator, unintelligent,... The '60s saw the advent of some trippier but at the same time "elevated" science fiction, providing brain food rather than mere spectacle. It's no surprise that The Planet Of The Apes, Fantastic Voyage and 2001, along with Star Trek and other "clever" science fiction emanated from this. But unlike most of those, 2001, by Kubrick's own choice, wasn't going to spell things out for us in large chunks of detailed exposition. I'm not saying this to convince you that 2001 really is entertaining as well as -- perhaps -- perplexing, but I merely wanted to give some background information. ;-)
This you must forgive me for disagreeing with, @007InAction. "Believable" is a word that can cover several meanings, so perhaps we're not using it the same way, but 2001 is perfectly "believable" within the internal logic of the film, at least in my opinion. And especially compared to other sci-fi films. I don't see any logical flaws with the film, nor the need for suspension of disbelief. Can you give some examples?
Well, I certainly think the stunning visuals of the film hold up even today and contribute to an audiovisual experience many will most likely confess is one of the main attractions of the film, indeed. But I doubt that the philosophical journey, built on the monoliths and their meaning, is lost to all but a few die-hard fans.
Anyway, I love 2001 myself but I don't expect everyone else to do so. I understand it's a strange film. There are many "strange" films that I personally dislike while others love them. I guess that's what defines the fun of it all. ;-)
EDIT: I just read @Dwayne's excellent response. Sorry for repeating some of what he said.
It's not on the same level as 2001, but it follows Clarke's sequel rather well and I wouldn't immediately dismiss it as a weak film. The reason I initially disagreed with the film was that it isn't 2001². The film is more of a conventional science fiction film, and at least in my opinion well-made. But it's vastly different in a narrative and aesthetic sense.
Spy Hard Daft fun, not Nielson's best parody though its pretty good. Only just realised there is a Bond connection in that Bill Conti did the score.
I believe it was Roger Ebert that said this film's attempts at parody weren't good enough, because to properly parody there must a point of view, a take on that which is being parodied. To recreate it is not enough. I think this is true of the film to some extent. It's not very good, but it's still a fun watch and there are some good jokes, though this certainly isn't ZAZ-level material. Also, Leslie Nielsen is terrific.
I love that song! An instrumental version was also released.
It's fun hearing Bill Conti's score imitating Morricone's music for In the Line of Fire, or Brad Fiedel's score for True Lies.
Edit: I was thinking of some jokes I like in the film...
-Falling bottle hits marathon runner in the head
-"Intruder entrance"
-The short guard with the threatening voice
-Mime execution
-Rancor's dossier photo
-"We go back a long way, eh?"
-"You're gonna look like cheese when they find you." "Oh... that's no gouda."
-The title sequence
Most of those are from the first part of the film. I think it gets worse as it goes along. It barely reaches the finish line.
That rings true re: Roger Ebert analysis, the film does have a cut and paste feel to the scenes its ribbing on. The stupidity of Nielson's dead pan sells the lessor material for me. I think time has been kind to it through my eyes also, it was amusing seeing the films they were parodying.
I enjoyed seeing some of the cast also, there are a lot of familiar faces, though I am in my 40's.
Revisiting these films as it's been at least a decade since I watched these. Don't believe I ever saw the 3rd film, but I picked up a copy today along with the Jeremy Renner outing.
Damn, though. These DVDs are OLD!!! Both my copies of SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM are effing full frame. Oh, well I only spent a couple bucks.
Oh, and my Blu-ray of IDENTITY is a flipper disc.
These quibbles aside, I am thoroughly enjoying my BOURNE kick.
I remember the Craig/Bourne comparisons and can say I see where certain elements of BOURNE may have inspired the early Craig era. Mainly the fight scene choreography. More so in QoS.
That said, these films aren't as lavish as I recall and seem decidedly low key. We get some solid fight scenes, a few car chases, but mostly intrigue. I went to a screening of TSWLM years ago and heard an audience member lamenting how dated the action scenes and stunts look compared to BOURNE. It's really the editing, camera work and choreography, as far as I'm concerned.
Interestingly, I discovered the BOURNE films weren't made with the budget of a Bond. The first film was made for only $60 million and the second $75 million. However the end results are very tight suspense thrillers with some action thrown in.
I'm really loving these as it's been years. I'll probably watch the third film tonight then the Renner outing over the weekend.
I ordered a copy of the latest film which should arrive next week, I can't wait!!!
Really enjoyed The Bourne series ( though not 'Legacy' which was poor!) And you should enjoy the latest one!
I've seen bits and pieces of LEGACY and am intrigued. I have a feeling I'll like it as a curio.
The last 20 minutes or so were bizarre also. What did you think of that ?
Did you understand it ?
I wonder what the studio execs thought of this enigmatic film :)>-
Trivia from imdb:
At the premiere screening, 241 people walked out of the theater, including Rock Hudson, who said, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?" Arthur C. Clarke once said, "If you understand '2001' completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered." Clarke later expressed some concern that the film was too hard to follow, and explained things more fully in the novelization and subsequent sequels.
The movie was not a financial success at first. MGM was planning to pull it back from theaters, but several theater owners persuaded them to keep showing the film. Many owners noticed increasing numbers of young adults attending the film. They were especially enthusiastic about watching the "Star Gate" sequence under the influence of psychotropic drugs. This helped the film to become a financial success.
Stanley Kubrick worked for several months with effects technicians to come up with a convincing effect for the floating pen in the shuttle sequence. After trying many different techniques, without success, Kubrick decided to simply use a pen that was adhered (using newly invented double-sided tape) to a sheet of glass and suspended in front of the camera. In fact, the shuttle attendant can be seen to "pull" the pen off the glass when she takes hold of it.
The only Oscar won by the film was for special visual effects. It was awarded to Stanley Kubrick--and was his sole win from 13 nominations. However, while Kubrick designed much of the look of the film and its effects, many of the technicians involved felt it was wrong for him to receive the sole credit. Following this controversy, the Academy tightened its eligibility rules.
Stanley Kubrick previewed the film for critics, but quickly regretted doing so. Among the mostly indifferent and unfavorable reviews, as noted in the documentary 2001: The Making of a Myth (2001), were: "Somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring"--The New York Times; "A monumentally unimaginative movie"--Harpers; "Space Odyssey fails most gloriously"--Newsday; and "Big, Beautiful but plodding scifi epic. Superb photography major asset to confusing, long-unfolding plot."--Variety.
More at:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt00000000062622/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
The couple in the elevator in Spy Hard was played by the same actors from True Lies. I'd always suspected it but wasn't sure until now:
True Lies:
Spy Hard:
How many horses in elevators can they run into?
I do like it for what it is. Not to be to spoilery, but the simultaneous setting is interesting. Edward Norton as The Guy In The Room (TM) is a fun weird performance. This is an all time "characters speaking in fast, pseudo-technical jargon" movie, Norton chief among them. Half the time you have no idea what they are on about, but it feels important.
Renner is fine, but it's clear why he couldn't succeed in his take-over bids for both this and MI. He's just too intense and ultimately unlikable. But I always enjoy seeing a different perspective from our original heroes.
The last part of the film shows Dave in a testing room built to resemble our world, in which he can be observed by the aliens. They ultimately allow him to be reborn and thus complete the cycle of life.
Regarding the critics, it wouldn't be the first time they got it "wrong" in the sense that it wouldn't be the first time they overlooked the brilliance of a film. Blade Runner and John Carpenter's The Thing are two other examples. But indeed, the mixed reviews for the film are well-documented in books and such on the subject of 2001. The film initially drew a lot of attention in colleges, allegedly appealing to pot-smoking tweens looking for that "groovy experience, maaan!". ;-) But the film built a loyal following over the years in all circles, and several of the biggest filmmakers we have now cite the film as one of their favourites. Lucas, Spielberg, Nolan and others have taken inspiration from 2001. It's one of those "niche" films--and I'm not saying this to sound culturally elevated above the norm--that will always stand between superhyped fans and ardent detractors. And that's fine. It is nowadays still not loved by everyone, but it is a bonafide classic in more than merely a technical sense, and that's good enough for me. :)
A nice idea undone by sluggish pacing, a script that feels unpolished, and a frankly bizarre central performance from Hardy.
Not the worst film I've ever seen, but probably the worst one I've watched so far this year.
Finally watched this one, and perhaps I was distracted, but had difficulty following the plot.
Still, I was entertained and thought Renner to be pretty good as Aaron Cross. Rachel Weiss was great, as was my hero and favorite actor, Stacy Keach.
I can't wait to see the next film in the series!!!
I wonder if, one day LEGACY will be reappraised and hailed as the OHMSS of the Bourne franchise?
It's a bit bloated in parts but I have come around to it. Renner is good, the action is inventive, and as you say, Weisz adds quite a bit. It's far better than the most recent one, which felt like a retread at best and made some extremely questionable narrative decisions at worst.
I have a copy of the latest film arriving in the mail later this week, so we'll see how I like it. So far my favorite film in the series might be SUPREMACY, though I really liked the first film.
I hope you enjoy it, @ToTheRight! :)
And I would be with you all the way in the sense that Supremacy is also my favourite of the bunch. I love the first three almost equally, though!
Today the original 1968 Planet of the Apes.
Nice camerawork and sets too. Very Ken Adams in spots.
It's a great movie and Audrey is a delight in it. You should definitely check out Sabrina next.
One of the greatest movies of all times...
Overall, I prefer The Donner Cut, because of well balancing of everything (as well as it can with its footage). It was a injustice to fire Donner and Superman's film career still hasn't recovered. But we got two great films out of it.
(Also, the way they used Clifton James as the Sheriff is the way Bond should have used him as Sheriff Pepper in about that much screentime)! Looks like Tom Mankiewicz learned his lesson, and that was with Richard Lester!
I have every film starring Audrey Hepburn (from RH onwards) either on DVD or BR (and one incredibly hard to find TV movie as a download), but yes, not everything has been released on BR yet (and perhaps never will, sadly.)
And she was subjected to some astonishing age-gap relationships on screen, that's for sure. Poor girl. But she did end up in the arms of Sean Connery, Carry Grant, Peter O'Toole, ... I doubt she complained. ;-)
Of course, I fell in love with her watching endless TV rebroadcasts of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” (as did many no doubt).
Hi @Dwayne,
thanks for posting this video. I think I have just about every well-known early movie of hers (including The Lavender Hill Mob) that's available on Blu-ray, but since I stopped buying normal DVDs when BD came about, I still missed out on a lot (the only Audrey movie I still have *only* on DVD is Wait Until Dark, while having replaced several others by the BD version. I'll keep looking and maybe will have to order the first standard DVDs for the past ten years or so.
As was the case with the later, excellent Rebecca and The Birds, this last British Hitchcock film was based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. This was however nowhere near as good.
Easily my favorite film of Wim Wenders' so far, it also sports some of my favorite performances from Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz, who strike up one of the most relatable, believable friendships I've seen in a film. It's muted yet beautiful - some of those dreary streets and sidewalks of Germany and other locales throughout Europe really, really pop and explode with those gorgeous sunsets. It's a stellar film and a masterclass in tension, particularly when the hits are unfolding.