2001: A Space Odyssey

Flamed Diving

Just watched this last night, great film, but the final 15 minutes confused the living ****e out of me!

Someone explain what it was about.

Bubs101

Some time child nonsense.

Seriosly, Hal is great but the rest of this movie is awful arthouse nonsense. Monkeys running around an obelisk?

mike65

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just watched this last night, great film, but the final 15 minutes confused the living ****e out of me!

Someone explain what it was about.

MikeC101

Well, from the book (which is a bit clearer about it I think):

The monolith at the start is used by an unseen alien presence to awaken intelligence in the tribe of ape-men. The ending in the book, which I don't think is as detailed or explained in the film, has Bowman approach another monolith in space, which turns out to be a stargate. It takes him on a journey, where he sees there are many other spaceships belonging to other species, it drains his memories and changes him into the "Star Child", which gives him pretty much godlike powers. The book ends with him destroying all the nuclear weapons on Earth, as they were a threat to humanity, and wondering what he will do next.

Offalycool

This is one of my favourite films, perhaps the greatest film ever.
There are quite a few interpretations, and Kubrick never endorsed any of them. One of the most comprehensive interpretations, and closest to Kubrick's vision IMO, is the speculation of a metaphysical evolution of man. There are essays about it on-line, but someone has gone to the trouble of creating a nice flash presentation.
http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Edit: The book and film are different in many ways, not least in meaning.

mike65

He's better looking.

Some films (or whatever art form) do not need a nice neat explaination and are the worse for it when someone tries to impose one.

Johnny Storm

Offalycool wrote: »

This is one of my favourite films, perhaps the greatest film ever.

+1

Flamed Diving

mike65 wrote: »

He's better looking.

Some films (or whatever art form) do not need a nice neat explaination and are the worse for it when someone tries to impose one.

Now, that's better than pictures.

I agree with you, but I was just wondering, in case I missed something along the way.

nyarlothothep

It the most excellent film ever but not enjoyable, its the most rewarding to watch though, the pinnacle of film making imo.

Greyfox

Bubs101 wrote: »

Some time child nonsense.

the rest of this movie is awful arthouse nonsense. Monkeys running around an obelisk?

Agreed, imo 2001 is definitely the most overratted film ever, watching a washing machine wash clothes would of been more interesting

ztoical

For me 2001 and similar films like say Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain are films that aren't watched but experienced. Have to be seen as big as possible in the darkest dark cinema. People want to know what's going on but when they find out they conclude they actually didn't need to know......it doesn't make the film better or worse so don't worry about just experience cinematic art at it's best.

Offalycool

mike65 wrote: »

Some films (or whatever art form) do not need a nice neat explaination and are the worse for it when someone tries to impose one.

True, but then nobody is claiming to be an authority on the film. If you have a better interpretation I would be interested in hearing it.

nyarlothothep

ztoical wrote: »

For me 2001 and similar films like say Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain are films that aren't watched but experienced. Have to be seen as big as possible in the darkest dark cinema. People want to know what's going on but when they find out they conclude they actually didn't need to know......it doesn't make the film better or worse so don't worry about just experience cinematic art at it's best.

True, I find it best to watch the film very late at night in a contemplative somnambulistic mood.

The end sequence is quite significant as I think its possibly the best expression of the universe in its incomprehensible awesomeness as envisioned in fiction.

monkeyfudge

The sequel 2010 is well worth watching.

It doesn't scale the artistic cinematic heights of the first film, but nor does it try to.

It does address a lot of the questions of the first film in a very good way, most notably why HAL went mad.

loyatemu

monkeyfudge wrote: »

The sequel 2010 is well worth watching.

It doesn't scale the artistic cinematic heights of the first film, but nor does it try to.

It does address a lot of the questions of the first film in a very good way, most notably why HAL went mad.

+1 - its nowhere near the original in scale and ambition, but its still a very good sci-fi movie.

Morlar

One of the greatest Kubrick /sci fi movies ever made.

mike65

When I saw 2010 first time I was underwhelmed, Peter Hymas was never really the right man for that job but it has grown on me esp the last 10 mins. Maybe I like the idea of two suns and a world at peace.

voxpop

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just watched this last night, great film, but the final 15 minutes confused the living ****e out of me!

Someone explain what it was about.

They ran out of money