Okay, so not all movies are made alike. There are mass market movies and niche movies. Certain movies are written / produced toward the intelligentsia.
What are some of the best "intelligent" movies? I'm going to go on a limb and include a few that have very intelligent subtext but can be appreciated by the masses (Shaun of the Dead).
Here's my top picks:
12 Monkeys A Clockwork Orange Baraka Confessions of a Dangerous Mind Eyes Wide Shut Good Night and Good Luck Howl's Moving Castle The Fall The Fountain The Science of Sleep Moon Prometheus Shaun of the Dead Source Code The Royal Tenenbaums Where the Wild Things Are
Special Jury "Too Smart for Its Own Good" Prize:
Primer
My "to-watch" list:
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel Pi
[ July 26, 2012, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
What do you think about Cosmopolis? For me it's a typical example of a over-intelligent movie.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: What do you think about Cosmopolis? For me it's a typical example of a over-intelligent movie.
Do you mean Metropolis? Cosmopolis isn't out yet in the US. But based on the early reviews (that include descriptions such as didactic, vapid, and boring), my guess is that it isn't very good (regardless of how smart it purports to be).
As long as a film's entertaining, I don't think it can be "over-intelligent". I mock Primer a little, but it's one of the best time travel movies ever made.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Donnie Darko.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
2001: A Space Odyssey The Graduate Airforce One Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Donnie Darko.
Second.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Transformers 2.
It's so deep, and there's so many complicated and interwoven layers, that typical people without a mind for these erudite sorts of cinema can't really tell it apart from a noisy, disjointed, poorly written action film.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Adaptation Huckabees
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Rush Hour Billy Madison Die Hard The Notebook 8 Mile Anchorman
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Fight Club Requiem For a Dream Memento Inception
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
ZachC, you almost got me. This is called trolling!
Capax, I completely disagree with Inception. I really don't get it why it's so high on IMDb. As if casket dream composition was something new and exciting.
I say:
Dogville Blade Runner Apocalypse Now A Clockwork Orange
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Capax, I completely disagree with Inception. I really don't get it why it's so high on IMDb. As if casket dream composition was something new and exciting.
The movie doesn't necessarily have to be new and exciting to be intelligent or challenging.
I would also add The Prestige
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I second The Prestige, the pacing is so exact that it keeps you from seeing the obvious.
The Machinist The Lookout One Hour Photo Secretary The Orphanage Dark City Lars and the Real Girl American Me Pandorum Freeway Cube series Matchstick Men Preaching to the Perverted Paper Moon Stranger than Fiction Hard Candy Paper Man The Perfect Host
And just because no one else has said it yet, Smart People. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Ooh, I did enjoy Smart People . . . forgot about that one (getting a little further into indie territory). I didn't enjoy The Secretary, but I agree that it was a well made, smart movie. Stranger than Fiction is another good add. I'd disagree with Lars and the Real Girl.
I think I'll side with Szymon on Inception. It had a good idea, but most of the "thinking" was just that plot points were omitted. That isn't intelligent. Sure, it'll make people think, but that's not the same thing. It's interesting, yes, but I don't think simple omission of an ending or some cool ideas makes it intelligent. I'd make a similar argument as to why Fight Club shouldn't be included -- it had some intelligent aspects, but it wasn't challenging and relied too heavily on a twist to make it worthwhile. Though the book, on the other hand, was astounding.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Though the book, on the other hand, was astounding.
For what it's worth, the author actually thinks the movie is better than the book:
quote:Now that I see the movie... I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make.
Also see the DVD commentary track he did.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'll have to make a more comprehensive list of my votes later, but I can only think right now of the films Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb and Network.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I would compare Fight Club to The Sixth Sense. Same kind of twist. And I agree it makes neither of those movies, however great they are, and they are, intelligent.
Inception, on the other hand, is like Matrix. Makes you think about stuff, but it isn't an intellectual challenge.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Was The Network really that challenging? I might have to rewatch. I do remember some really great dialogue, but the plot itself was mostly by the numbers.
I might want to add David Fincher's remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I haven't watched the American version, but I watched Swedish and read the book- now, that's crime, nothing else. But maybe I don't quite get what we are voting on Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It is my understanding that the American version was a frame by frame remake of the original, but Let Me In is still a very smart movie.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I haven't watched the American version, but I watched Swedish and read the book- now, that's crime, nothing else. But maybe I don't quite get what we are voting on
I just thought that the subject matter, as portrayed by Fincher, was edgy. The performances (especially Rooney Mara) were very multilayered. The crime portion was good enough (though rote), but all of the aspects of the production were very intelligently done.
I don't know. I guess my criterion would be a film that a casual viewer would miss many important elements of the artistic production. This could be a multilayered genre film (Shaun of the Dead or Donnie Darko) or a challenging adult film (Lolita or American Beauty) or a brainy thinkpiece (The Fountain or Primer) or a challenging art piece (The Fall or The Science of Sleep) or an experimental / experiential work (Baraka or The Tree of Life).
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I loved the book of Let The Right One In, and the original version of the movie was pretty good too. They took out a lot of the complexity, as they had to, but they kept in enough of the interesting stuff, and made it well enough, that it was worth watching.
The American version (at least to my recollection, having only seen it once right when it came out) was a much less interesting film. I remember enjoying it while I was watching it. They did a good job of transferring the atmosphere of the book, and it was pretty well paced. But after the movie ended it occurred to me that every single thing that made the book special was cut from the screenplay.
I understand why they did it. Too many movies lose the feeling of the source material by trying to cram a bunch of mythology into a 2-hour run time. I'm glad they didn't fall into that trap. But when the movie ended, it kind of seemed like a very generic vampire story. It didn't feel like there was any special reason for it to exist, except as an exercise in film making.
The original film did a pretty good job of balancing story and atmosphere. But I think the book is still the definitive version of that story.
That's just my impression, based on soft memories, though. So feel free to correct me.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I haven't read the book, but in the end I didn't feel that Let Me In was a vampire movie. More of a lonely child finding his way in a dark world story, the scene where the girl bleeds from her eyes was fascinating but the boy leaving his childhood behind was far more interesting.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Was The Network really that challenging? I might have to rewatch. I do remember some really great dialogue, but the plot itself was mostly by the numbers.
I'm talking about the 1976 film Network. Not The Social Network.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Has anyone seen Head, the film that effectively ended The Monkeys' career? I hear it's amazing.
Oh, and for (super) indie productions, I might add The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising, The Pirates of the Great Salt Lake, and . . . equivocally . . . some of the output of RedLetterMedia.
SteveRogers: My mistake--trust me to bring the stupid. I'll add it to my watchlist.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
I don't know. I guess my criterion would be a film that a casual viewer would miss many important elements of the artistic production. This could be a multilayered genre film (Shaun of the Dead or Donnie Darko) or a challenging adult film (Lolita or American Beauty) or a brainy thinkpiece (The Fountain or Primer) or a challenging art piece (The Fall or The Science of Sleep) or an experimental / experiential work (Baraka or The Tree of Life).
All right, that's comprehensible.
My list then, including the previous: Dogville Blade Runner Apocalypse Now A Clockwork Orange 12 Angry Men Matrix Cube Minority Report Flying Over Cuckoo's Nest 2001: Space Odyssey Pursuit of Happiness Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Joke
[ July 27, 2012, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Szymon ]
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Although I completely don't get it what people like about The Tree of Life. Yawn.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Harry Potter? Really? Maybe I'd include Super or Cannibal the Musical, Orgazmo, or Pee Wee's Big Adventure even. But Harry Potter?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yeah, that was together with the next movie Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Oh. I thought you meant 1969's The Joke, one of the more important films of the Czech New Wave.
I was like . . . did I miss some hidden subtext? Do I need to rewatch Harry Potter for dirty innuendo?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Brazil Henry Fool Aguirre, the Wrath of God (actually most films by Werner Herzog) Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (again, probably most films by Jim Jarmusch) Underground (1995, Emir Kusturica) The Widow of Saint-Pierre (and other films by Patrice Leconte: Girl on the Bridge, The Hairdresser's Husband, Man on the Train are all good) The Big Kahuna Magnolia (although I prefer Punch-Drunk Love) Wings of Desire (and other films by Wim Wenders: Until the End of the World, Faraway, so Close!, Paris, Texas, etc.) Groundhog Day Solaris (Tarkovsky's version, although Soderbergh's is more immediately accessible) The Quiet Earth Wild at Heart (funny selection, I know, but yeah, anything by David Lynch) A Serious Man (I'd say the Coen Bros. headiest film) ...
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Part of me wants to add Natural Born Killers to this list. But sometimes I hate that movie and other times I love it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll admit I don't much care for Fight Club anymore, but I think it's hard to argue that it's merely a twist or gimmick that makes it interesting.
Fight Club has a lot of heady themes mixed up in it. It's about the internalization of oppression and anti-commercialism that builds until you get to the end, where the only way to escape that internalization is to literally blow up the system. The smartness of it isn't just the "OMG, it's the same guy!" It's all the other stuff.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Yeah, it's the subtext of Fight Club which makes it a valuable film and novel more so than it is the twist ending.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Then Sixth Sense is an example of a movie where only the twist make it a good movie. While rewatching it's like: "aaah, yeah", "oh God, how come I didn't get it from that!"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The Royal Tenenbaums may be the worst movie I have ever seen. YES-I got it. I just thought it was stupid, poorly acted, and a waste of time.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The Royal Tenenbaums may be the worst movie I have ever seen. YES-I got it. I just thought it was stupid, poorly acted, and a waste of time.
Which is odd. Because I would put that movie in my personal top 10 all time list. Easily.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Eraserhead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The Royal Tenenbaums may be the worst movie I have ever seen. YES-I got it. I just thought it was stupid, poorly acted, and a waste of time.
Which is odd. Because I would put that movie in my personal top 10 all time list. Easily.
I think I have to side with Kwea on this one, but then, I have a hate/meh relationship with most Wes Anderson movies.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Okay, now I've watched Donnie Darko and I liked it although I cannot say I understood all of it. But it certainly is well made, so it doesn't matter, it's worth watching as an artistic picture. I liked the sounds and the music and acting.
I liked it how he just rolled on the bed and laughed in the final scene.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The Royal Tenenbaums may be the worst movie I have ever seen. YES-I got it. I just thought it was stupid, poorly acted, and a waste of time.
Which is odd. Because I would put that movie in my personal top 10 all time list. Easily.
I think I have to side with Kwea on this one, but then, I have a hate/meh relationship with most Wes Anderson movies.
I've loved every single one of his movies.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Okay, now I've watched Donnie Darko and I liked it although I cannot say I understood all of it. But it certainly is well made, so it doesn't matter, it's worth watching as an artistic picture. I liked the sounds and the music and acting.
I liked it how he just rolled on the bed and laughed in the final scene.
Which version of the movie did you watch?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Director's cut. Why, do they differ significantly?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Has anyone else watched S. Darko?
It is equally as strange as Donnie Darko and follow his little sister's adventure in a small town.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Director's cut. Why, do they differ significantly?
There's a pretty big divide between fans of the film who debate the merits of one over the other. Having seen both, I prefer the Director's Cut primarily because of the different songs they were able to use in some places in the film.
But my understanding is that the theatrical cut is a lot more ambigious and leaves a lot more to the imagination. Which is something a lot of people valued highly in that version of the movie.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Has anyone else watched S. Darko?
It is equally as strange as Donnie Darko and follow his little sister's adventure in a small town.
As for S. Darko? I have literally no interest.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I never pay attention to written text in movies. Here, apparently, it was vital. I'm a little frustrated.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This thread intimidates me. What if my contributions aren't intelligent enough?
2001: A Space Odyssey I vote against, however. It wasn't intelligent. It was five minutes of poor prediction spread out into thirty years, or something. I watched it fully expecting something amazing, and was disappointed.
*
It's not my favourite film, but Billy Elliot I think has a lot to offer.
I agree with Groundhog Day
The King's Speech I loved, and I thought it was intelligent in a quiet way, and not flashy. Beautifully understated.
A Hard Day's Night is probably one of my favourite films and while it may seem not an intelligent film I listened to a radio program about how much went into it and I am fully convinced it is of the highest order of intelligence because it took an absolute ton of intelligence to make it so amazing and fresh even a zillion years on.
Bugsy Malone is another sleeper intelligence film that lets you join the dots-- or not. It brings it home in thirty seconds at the end of the film.
Now, I don't think that Inception counts as "intelligent" but I was and still am impressed by the cleverness of the concept and the use of music in the film.
At the TIFF once I saw a French film that was an homage to The Red Balloon called... "The Red Balloon". It was improvised and I may have just been tired or open to suggestion, but I really enjoyed it. Perhaps I was seeing things that weren't there.
Not in terms of original storytelling, but in terms of background intelligence I think Lord of the Rings is one of the most intelligent films I've seen. Storytelling goes on not only in the script or the film as a whole but behind the scenes.
Finally...
One of my favourite films is the absolutely stunning The Railway Children. Again, it's not a blinder of a plot, but it's a blinder of a film. Sometimes I think that the simplest plots are the most difficult to pull off but absolutely everything in this film works together to tell the story.
I haven't seen that many modern films. I have a tender constitution.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Director's cut. Why, do they differ significantly?
There's a pretty big divide between fans of the film who debate the merits of one over the other. Having seen both, I prefer the Director's Cut primarily because of the different songs they were able to use in some places in the film.
But my understanding is that the theatrical cut is a lot more ambigious and leaves a lot more to the imagination. Which is something a lot of people valued highly in that version of the movie.
I was super frustrated by the music changes in the director's cut of donnie darko. The Killing Moon was a perfect way to start that movie, and it doesn't have the same feel with the INXS song.
I'm also one of the ones that liked that ambiguity. After the seeing the movie I went out and did some detective work on the website, and read the philosophy of time travel book, etc...and pieced together some things myself through that and rewatching. I enjoyed doing that.
But in the director's cut, I didn't like being hammered over the head with the time travel book, I didn't like the camera views from the aliens' perspective, and I didn't like the cheesy fireworks/applause ending.
I did really love having the deleted scenes reincorporated into the movie though.
I generally tell people not to watch the directors cut.
Posted by BYSOAL (Member # 3846) on :
Hmm, did I overrate the depth of Gattaca? I'm shocked not to see it at least mentioned yet.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Jungle Fever Shrek 2001 The Last Temptation of Christ Walkabout Blazing Saddles Blade Runner Modern Times The Birth of a Nation Butterfly Effect Brazil Memento Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: 2001: A Space Odyssey I vote against, however. It wasn't intelligent. It was five minutes of poor prediction spread out into thirty years, or something. I watched it fully expecting something amazing, and was disappointed.
I also feel 2001 is an incredibly over-rated movie.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
But the music is marvelous and effects were splendid
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I agree, but I think it fails as a film. If that makes sense. The effects are gorgeous. The music is wonderful. The narrative is lacking.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BYSOAL: Hmm, did I overrate the depth of Gattaca? I'm shocked not to see it at least mentioned yet.
I love Gattaca, but I don't think it was that challenging other than raising an interesting issue. I think it's a great, well made movie, but I don't know if it qualifies as intellectually challenging.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I suppose you could argue Gattaca raises some interesting ethical issues which might make it an inherently challenging film, but I don't think it's the kind of movie to alter someone's world view or something.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Although I completely don't get it what people like about The Tree of Life. Yawn.
Some thoughts I had after seeing TOL (pasted from an email to friends):
Obviously the movie is mainly about God, or more specifically what I would call "God's perspective on human life." Now, regarding the God part I actually have two different readings of the creation scenes and their role. Very related, but also in a sense opposed to each other. The first is the one that fits with the Job quote at the beginning, which is sort of a pro-religion reading of the movie. If I had to guess I would say this is the one Malick intended, but I don't think that detracts from the other, more anti-religious reading.
The character who actually asks the question "Where were you?" right before the creation scenes is the mom. I think you can see the creation scenes as a kind of mocking response to the mom and her whole approach to belief. She thinks of God as this man in the sky who is involved in her life and cares about her. The first segment of the movie highlights these ideas of hers. Then we see the creation scenes and realize that any being responsible for the creation of this universe must simply perceive us as tiny things eking out life in the cracks of His great work.
Following the creation scenes, we see another vision of God alluded to more obliquely: a more Old Testament conception embodied by Brad Pitt's demands of obedience from his boys, as well as his demand for love without consistent reciprocation. This is the one thing that leads me to think maybe Malick had the more anti-religious meaning in mind, because I can't imagine that he didn't have a critique of Old Testament religion in mind when writing the Brad Pitt part. Again we see how this concept of God falls short, in this case not because of anything cosmic, but simply because it's morally corrupt. The revelation from this storyline is that Brad Pitt is no more mature than his son, the parallel message being that the Old Testament God is no greater than the humans who are supposed to be his subjects. The mother is sort of like Mary in some ways, I think. She's perfect in the boys' eyes, for one thing. Also, she stands for a more loving, Christian stance rather than the dad's Old Testament stance.
I think the movie is brilliant. The only part i don't like now (and again, I've gone back and forth) is the last 20 minutes on the beach/in "heaven" or whatever. Boooring.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A couple of movies that belong in the titular list are Cronenberg's early-ish ones "Videodrome" and "Exisenz."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I also feel 2001 is an incredibly over-rated movie.
The title of this thread is important here. It's a challenging movie. Many movies come right out and tell you what they are about. 2001 leaves it entirely up to you. Either you get it, or you don't. I find the movie to have incredibly deep meaning, so I guess I'm curious, what do you think it's about?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
The title of the thread also says "movie." I don't think 2001 really excels within that medium. If you're looking for like multimedia art, then that would be closer.
But I don't think it really works as a movie.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You didn't answer the question.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
(In a sing song voice) You didn't answer the question Steve.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
I was thinking of this to add, and also the following:
The Truman Show Being John Malkovich Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I don't have one specific meaning in mind for 2001. It's not the kind of thing you can slap an explanation on and do it justice. And, frankly, I find the phrasing of your question to seem to indicate you seem to think I "don't get" the movie, and I take umbrage at that.
I'm not debating whether or not 2001 is ambiguous. It could mean any number of things. It could be a story of human evolution. It could be a story exploring life in the universe. It could be exploring intelligence and freewill. It could be exploring the vastness of the universe and the limited capacity of human understanding. It could just be about the smallness of mankind in a vast universe. It could be a religious story explaining what place their might be for "a god" figure in the universe (The Monolith, the star child sequence at the end). There are about a billion debatable explanations for what 2001: A Space Odyssey could mean.
I think the style in which it's shot and the music which accompanies much of the project is just breathtakingly gorgeous. And it's really easy to see why it was such an influential project when it was released.
However, I don't think Kubrick or Arthur C. Clarke truly meant to give it one single meaning either.
What I AM saying is that I think the it's far too ambiguous to be considered a success as a movie. Aside from the sequences with David, Frank, and HAL towards the end of the project, there's not really a narrative. And that's why I think, in my opinion, it fails to meet the specifications for being a "movie."
Which isn't to say I don't value Kubrick's work on the film, the overall visual style and effects, the music, or the potential philosophical questions it addresses.
I just don't think movie is the right word to describe it. I said it was over-rated as a movie because I think it is. I would say the same thing about The Tree of Life. Movie is a word which doesn't even begin to do either of them justice specifically because of how challenging they are.
Edit:
I took a class which assigned me to read the original short story and novel upon which Kubrick's project were based and then a paper and review about the adaptation which I was going to post here too, but I can't seem to locate it on my computer now.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If you're an afficianado of the Slow Spaceships in Space film, don't read this. You'll just hate me forever.
2001:
(Inhu)Men progress. They go looking for a mysterious monolith. The most human character, HAL, goes crazy and kills everyone, and is then deactivated. The surviving spaceman kills HAL, travels through a wormhole for ten minutes to the most boring rooms ever, then progresses some more.
Women are absent entirely except for as stewardesses.
*
Leaving space for interpretation does not make a good or intelligent film by default whatever is read into it by viewers. It's not rocket science (heh) to put together something that's interpretable in a number of ways; almost every shape and piece of music and story and word choice and even name choice has a connection with something referenced. Part of the reason religion is so successful is that people can interpret stories like this and give them meaning.
Personally, I don't find something so vague engaging. If I can think of several ways it can be interpreted while I'm watching it, what's the point of it being interpreted at all?
It's like half a tank of fomaldehyde, or a painting of a sky.
*
quote:I think the style in which it's shot and the music which accompanies much of the project is just breathtakingly gorgeous.
Simple? Static? Measured? What is Kubrick trying to tell me? The music was put in as a stop gap until the real music could be written. When the real music was completed, Kubrick decided he liked parts of the stand-in music better. It was chosen, but it wasn't cherry picked from all the music in the world.
*
Finally, I find the ethos unpleasant. As I said above, either deliberately or by mistake, the most engaging and human character is HAL. Dave is like a piece of stone. Deliberate? Who knows! The characters are all like this. Maybe it's supposed to show us in a crappy future.
But then, assuming that the end is supposed to be a step forward (which I'm not even sure about, maybe if you're dull and emotionless) the most stonelike person gets to progress, or be restarted or reborn or turned into an Ancient or alienized or whatever happens at the end in vague white room land.
Thinking about it, I always assumed that the movie was about progress at its most basic, but perhaps it's about stagnation-- progress has basically slowed to a halt and all the meaning has just vanished. See, I'm not even sure that Kubrick isn't just playing an enormous joke on everyone. It's just half a tank of formaldehyde.
Teshi, some of the points you make are way I think 2001 fails as a film.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: The title of the thread also says "movie." I don't think 2001 really excels within that medium. If you're looking for like multimedia art, then that would be closer.
How do you propose to tell a movie from "multimedia art"? Don't get me wrong, I quite agree, but for this topic's sake we have to consider all "motion pictures" as movies. Because I'd say Tree of Life is also something multimedia-artish, so is Requiem for a Dream, so is Antichrist. Antichrist- that you could put on the list- it's definitely challenging. I hated it, but it's challenging non the less.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think the movie is brilliant. The only part i don't like now (and again, I've gone back and forth) is the last 20 minutes on the beach/in "heaven" or whatever. Boooring.
I'm sorry I can't tell you why I disagree, but it's been some time since I saw the movie. I just remember my impression- and I remember it was dull. But it doesn't mean it was a bad movie, however. I am very moody about stuff. Books, not so much, because it usually takes more than one day to read a book and the mood swings and I've got a pretty objective look. But movies- man, if I am tired or stressed about something- I can mark the best movie as "dull" because I simply don't pay attention. I would have to watch it again. After your post I think I just might, you made it sound really cool.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: The title of the thread also says "movie." I don't think 2001 really excels within that medium. If you're looking for like multimedia art, then that would be closer.
How do you propose to tell a movie from "multimedia art"? Don't get me wrong, I quite agree, but for this topic's sake we have to consider all "motion pictures" as movies. Because I'd say Tree of Life is also something multimedia-artish, so is Requiem for a Dream, so is Antichrist. Antichrist- that you could put on the list- it's definitely challenging. I hated it, but it's challenging non the less.
I think the difference I'd have to suggest based on things I've already said is for a "movie" to have something resembling a narrative.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Then 2001 is definitely a movie because, at least for a the Moon part, it's definitely got narrative.
trivia: My father told me that they let 2001:SO to be watched in Polish theaters when he was young because Kubrick made Soviets look pretty good. Other movies they had to smuggle Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think the scenes with Dave and HAL hardly constitute a narrative for the whole film.
[ July 29, 2012, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: SteveRogers ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I suppose you could argue Gattaca raises some interesting ethical issues which might make it an inherently challenging film, but I don't think it's the kind of movie to alter someone's world view or something.
If the standard used for this list is it must be world view altering to be deemed intelligent or challenging then I think about 99% of the movies listed here are disqualified. World view altering is pretty serious stuff.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Have you ever? Watched or heard of someone watching a film that altered his/her life?
I have, but I forgot what movie that was. I can hear this sentence in my head though: "this movie changed my life".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I agree, but I think it fails as a film. If that makes sense. The effects are gorgeous. The music is wonderful. The narrative is lacking.
I sort of agree. I love the movie to death, but it is really several stories at once, and without the novel, it is hard to grasp them all.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Baraka has no narrative at all. Neither do many documentaries. They're still movies.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
To be clear: I agree that 2001 is a movie. I just don't think it's particularly intelligent.
None of the movies on my list changed my life in the way you mean, but I think they're intelligent.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I don't necessarily think a movie has to change someone's life to be considered. That was just the phrase I used to point out the weaknesses in the movie Gattaca.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I don't necessarily think a movie has to change someone's life to be considered. That was just the phrase I used to point out the weaknesses in the movie Gattaca.
Not being life changing is a weakness for movies? Man, you have some high standards. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:And, frankly, I find the phrasing of your question to seem to indicate you seem to think I "don't get" the movie, and I take umbrage at that.
It was, but what's weird is that from your explanation, it seems to me that you *do* "get" the movie. But all your reasons for why you don't think it works as a movie are precisely why I DO think it works.
quote:What I AM saying is that I think the it's far too ambiguous to be considered a success as a movie.
See, first of all, the movie is a success. Commercially, historically, etc. it is a success. The fact that it was able to be a success while being ambiguous is evidence that the ambiguity at the very least didn't interfere with that. But beyond that, the fact that it is successful enough to cause people to debate it's meaning is a strong sign that the ambiguity has value.
And yes, it changed my life. I was probably 9 years old when I saw it, and I came out of the theater with my mind reeling with the thought that Bowman was a distinct link in the evolution from man to star-man.
quote:It could mean any number of things.
And good literature usually does mean "any number of things." I think it means at least all of the things you mentioned, and it does so without being obvious. The narrative you are searching for is often merely a distraction from the various meanings the author or screenwriter actually intends, and it should be so.
Most people think of Moby Dick as a story about Ahab and crew. In my opinion, Ahab is merely a plot device in Moby Dick, created to give Melville the structure on which to flesh out his ideas (which again, are left extremely ambiguous, so you the audience has the opportunity to have to think about them). 2001 does much with as little narrative as possible, and that's an incredible accomplishment.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm not talking about whether or not it was a success commercially or critically. I understand how almost universally acclaimed it is. And I'm certainly not debating its influence on pop culture or filmmaking to follow. Just that I don't think it really excels in that medium.
I mean, this is all my opinion, of course, but I've watched the movie, written about the movie, and discussed the movie, but I've never really understood why people make such a big deal about it.
I think it's an anomaly in Kubrick's work. Most of his other movies are "big idea" movies which have a much more cohesive narrative, and I think succeed to a greater degree because of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Anyone seen Exit Through the Gift Shop? We spent a good hour talking about what we thought we just saw after we watched it.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I actually have seen that movie. It was part of the film series at my school's fine arts theatre.
What did you think?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
No one mentioned:
Dr. Strangelove
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
SteveRogers did on the first page, actually.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Dr. Strangelove is one of my favorite movies of all time. And despite my issues with 2001, I really love Kubrick.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)