I’ve just seen 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time…

[Danny Stephenson]

and I thought it was brilliant! The visuals were stunning, and it’s amazing to see where all of the beginnings of Red dwarf et al, came from.

I couldn’t speak for about 5 minutes after i’d finished watching it. Really.

It’s not the only film that i should have seen a long time ago. Only saw the Shining the other week, and I haven’t watched Star wars properly since I was abotu 8.

Anyone else have any films they should have seen by now?

Topic

[John Hoare]

I have 2001 as the first film I’ve bought on Blu-Ray – I’ve never seen it, but from what I’ve read, I doubt I could have picked a better choice for my first HD film.

Might stick it in tomorrow AND WATCH 2001 NOW FUCK OFF.

[hummingbird]

I’ve never seen Citizen Kane or any of the Godfather movies.

2001 is a truly great movie, although many people dismiss it because the pace is not what they’re used to.
Have you seen Solaris? (the original Tarkovsky, not the George Clooney remake)

[JamesTC]

I have a shelf classic in Independance Day, got the two disc special edition over a year ago and I still haven’t watched it.

[Pete Part Three]

2001 is fucking boring.

[Danny Stephenson]

I?ve never seen Citizen Kane or any of the Godfather movies.

Ditto. Ironically i’m studying a course that involves knowing a lot about films. Bugger.

[si]

I only saw 2001 for the first time when I was at Uni studying Science & Science Fiction. As for the big SF movies – never seen any of the Alien films, think I’ve seen Terminator once, not seen Star Wars in about twenty years – never seen the prequels – and hadn’t seen Blade Runner til very recently…

[pfm]

> but from what I?ve read, I doubt I could have picked a better choice for my first HD film.

Too right. I only rented it but heck this is one of those that was MADE for HD, particularly the second half when all the wacky stuff starts happening. It’s very slow paced and I always got bored with it when I tried to watch it on TV in the past. Sitting down and watching it properly in HD was an amazing experience. But…WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN???

Other Blu-rays I heartily recommend – Blade Runner: The Father Cut, Nightmare Before Christmas (fuck yes), Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ANY Disney or Pixar film (Ratatouille ftw), Troy Director’s Cut (brilliant), Kingdom of Heaven, either Nolan Batman movie, Casino Royale, Sweeney Todd, Life of Brian, Apocalypto, The Prestige, Adventures of Baron Munchausen(!), both Hellboy films and many more!

[ChrisM]

I saw Kingdom of heaven for the first time recently. (On the telly, not Blu-ray.)

It looked amazing! I quite liked the story at the start, but I went off it through the second half. It just felt a bit cliche ridden and.. well… corny. What with this new knight suddenly becoming an expert in siege warfare and all. Visually stunning though, particularly the scenes with the huge catapults.

[Nick R]

The video game Rez has always seemed very 2001-ish to me, especially Area 5… an insane computer; fast, low flight over alien landscapes; the theme of evolution (with the player character’s highest form being a baby)…

I watched 2001 on video when I was very young – I think my mum wanted to explain to me where the joke about Homer’s vibrating chair came from. I think I’ve watched it one or two times since then, so I think I’m fairly familiar with the film and consider it a fantastic achievement… even though I’d rarely set aside 2 1/2 hours to watch it.

I think Arthur C Clarke’s novel (writen at the same time as the film, so it’s hard to say which bits of the screenplay and novel are Clarke’s and which are Kubrick’s) is also excellent. It’s somewhat more literal than the film (what the Star Child does at the end is more explicit), so it probably appeals more to the hard-sci-fi side of me. I think that’s one of the reasons it’s such an interesting film – the science geeks can appreciate the story on a literal hard-SF level, and the wishy-washy philosophers and Humanities students can have fun finding ever more layers of symbolism in the film. :-) And everyone can agree the images and music are incredible.

Some examples:

http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/2001_and_Beyond_the_Infinite
http://www.kubrick2001.com/
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0009.html – written by a 15-year-old (although it reads to me more like Rorschach…), and according to the blurb at the top, it was supposedly Kubrick’s favourite interpretation.

Although I think that this theory is stretching it a bit:

Wheat often uses anagrams as evidence to support his theories. For example, of the name Heywood R. Floyd, he writes “He suggests Helen – Helen of Troy. Wood suggests wooden horse – the Trojan Horse. And oy suggests Troy.” Of the remaining letters, he suggests “Y is Spanish for and. R, F, and L, in turn, are in ReFLect.” Finally, noting that D can stand for downfall, Wheat concludes that Floyd’s name has a hidden meaning: “Helen and Wooden Horse Reflect Troy’s Downfall”.[11]

@hummingbird:
> I?ve never seen Citizen Kane or any of the Godfather movies.

The Godfather is probably the most disappointed I’ve been in a “classic” film. So boring. And I’ve tried three times to see what all the fuss is about. I can appreciate the film, grudgingly – it’s not technically bad, in that it doesn’t contain cheesy dialogue or plot holes – but I didn’t particularly care about the story of Michael Corleone becoming the monster he never wanted to be. And Marlon Brando? Mumbleman Brando, more like, lol! (Although I would still like to see Part 2, even though I’ve never heard of someone liking one but not the other.)

[Pete Part Three]

This weekend I’ve watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time ever, and The Goonies for the first time in at least fifteen years.

I was bored senseless by the former, and strangely underwhelmed by the latter.

They join a small list of films (also occupied by 2001, Blade Runner, Raging Bull and any Monty Python) that I get the feeling that I’m supposed to love, but just don’t feel it. I have no gripes about a film being slow (12 Angry Men is “slow” but it’s also awesome), but I just found 2001 incredibly “aware” of its own importance.

It remains my most disappointing film experience. I’d read the synopsis of the HAL and Dave segment and thought it sounded great. I was bored rigid by the time the film got to that part, and it failed to redeem things.

The Godfather, however, I think is pretty solid. Popular consensus seems to be that Part 2 has the edge, but I disagree. Citizen Kane failed to blow me away, but it’s entertaining enough.

[Andrew]

> I saw Kingdom of heaven for the first time recently.

If it wasn’t the director’s cut, it’s a tenth of the film it could have been. The layers of the extended cut make it a vastly better and more rounded piece of work. If you’ve only seen the cinema cut, honestly, you haven’t seen the movie at anywhere near its best. Not often the case (‘longer’ is often just ‘longer’) but seriously – the shorter version is a three-star film, the director’s cut is an easy four and maybe a five.

[si]

>This weekend I?ve watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time ever

WHAT THE FUCK??!!!

>I was bored senseless

WHAT THE FUCK??!!!

[Pete Part Three]

>WHAT THE FUCK??!!!

I’d been put off by fears that the plot sounded ropey and, despite being a musical, there only seemed to be a couple of decent songs.

>WHAT THE FUCK??!!!

Turns out my fears were justified. Utterly incomprehensible.

[si]

I suppose it’s a matter of taste. I was fourteen the first time I saw it, and haven’t looked back since.

[Pete Part Three]

Well, of course. The reason I brought it up in this thread is that it’s an example of a film that’s widely appreciated. I wanted to like it since I’ve always liked Richard O’Brien but it really wasn’t my thing.

[Andrew]

Thing is, TRHPS is a pretty inept piece of filmmaking. But if you fall for it, that’s it. The shoddy narrative, clunky direction and design…it doesn’t matter. It’s a film that’s easy for some – for many – to fall for and embrace, warts and all. I don’t fall into that category, but I get it. And the songs, for the first half anyway, are great.

Shock Treatment (despite an even messier script, and arguably fewer good songs) is arguably the better overall movie. Certainly more inventive.

The Godfather is fucking ace, though.

[peas_and_corn]

Rocky Horror was great as a stage play. I didn’t enjoy the film.

[Ben Paddon]

Rocky Horror is rubbish.

[si]

I must admit, I prefer it onstage to the movie, but I think it’s the whole experience – dressing up, shouting back at the stage etc. No lie, Jason Donovan is the best Frank I’ve ever seen.

[Seb Patrick]

I think if your first RHPS experience is after the age of about seventeen, you’re never going to truly love it. I still love the songs, but I’ve had no real inclination to watch the film for years, now.

However :

Shock Treatment (despite an even messier script, and arguably fewer good songs) is arguably the better overall movie. Certainly more inventive.

… I agree with this, save for the fact that I’ve come to actually prefer the songs in Shock Treatment, as well.

[hummingbird]

> I think if your first RHPS experience is after the age of about seventeen, you?re never going to truly love it. I still love the songs, but I?ve had no real inclination to watch the film for years, now.

This, absolutely. I first saw it aged 16 and loved it, saw the stage show over and over again when I was 16/17, and did the whole costume/audience participation thing. I think I’ve seen it maybe once or twice since then and I enjoyed it, but more for the nostalgia trip than anything else.

[pfm]

> the director?s cut is an easy four and maybe a five.

IMO the only thing stopping it from being a 5/5 is Orlando Bloom. If only he had…any kind of charisma it would have done KoH the world of good. Though I suppose he DOES put the effort in so you’ve got to give him some credit. You’ve just got to thank god that the overall cast is brilliant (where the hell else could you find Qui-Gon Jinn, Legolas, David Frost/Tony Blair/Brian Clough, Vesper Lynd, Lucius Vorenus, Bashir from DS9, Remus Lupin, Gene Hunt(!) and that bloke from Fight Club who isn’t Tyler Durden?? Nowhere, that’s where).

There’s something so intriguing about Edward Norton’s role as the forever masked King. An inspired piece of casting to say the least, and if I remember he was either uncredited or not high on the cast list at all.

The difference between theatrical and director’s cut really is night and day. The DC is the true epic, easily in Ridley Scott’s top 5 films, which ain’t bad considering his CV and the fact that he was knocking on 70 when he directed it. In a few ways it probably is his very BEST. It’s better than GI Jane anyway.

[ChrisM]

I’m sure, being on the telly, the version I saw was probably the theatrical cut then. (I didn’t know about the two cuts, although I’m not surprised.)

As for Orlando Bloom, I’d heard criticism of him before I saw the film, but I actually thought he was fine in it. The faults with the film certainly weren’t him in my opinion. As it was, it still wasn’t bad, stuff that could have been rectified with more depth, which I assume is what the extra footage gives.

[hummingbird]

> IMO the only thing stopping it from being a 5/5 is Orlando Bloom. If only he had?any kind of charisma it would have done KoH the world of good. Though I suppose he DOES put the effort in so you?ve got to give him some credit. You?ve just got to thank god that the overall cast is brilliant

Agreed. I have the Director’s cut too, and it’s almost a great film … but not quite.
IMO I think they should have cast the lead differently. I don’t dislike OB, but he just can’t quite carry the role – although, as you say, he is trying damned hard. It doesn’t help, either, that he’s a little too pretty and looks about 15 years old.
The rest of the cast are superb and every other aspect of the film is pretty stunning, though, so it’s definitely a 4/5.

[pfm]

Even though he probably wouldn’t have done it, due to LOTR, I WOULD have liked to have seen Scott cast Bloom in Robin Hood against Russell Crowe’s Sheriff. Crowe is way more the Sheriff IMO than Robin. The idea they had of him playing both roles in some kind of twist would have been OK too, but now it just sounds like a straightforward (and therefore pointless) retread.

Scott’s Robin Hood should have been a direct sequel to Kingdom of Heaven. It would have made sense – do the Crusades then the Hood story. We’ll just have to see what he comes up with. It’s all down to studio interference.

[Nakrophile]

When we watched it on new years eve the end of it linked up exactly with the start of the new year. It was a pleasing coincidence.

I want to read 2063 and 3001.

[Pete Part Three]

Can I do my Lee and Herring joke now?

[hummingbird]

No.

[peas_and_corn]

>I want to read 2063 and 3001.

Make sure you read the first two books, not just see the films (if you have, ignore this…).

[Nakrophile]

> ignore this

Duly noted.

[Author]

Replies