10 ms·

> Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total exaggeration I was thinking this at first but I've struggled with a suggestion of a better, and crit

> Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total exaggeration I was thinking this at first but I've struggled with a suggestion of a better, and critically more impactful/influential, movie in the genere.

willhinsa 4y ago
2001: A Space Odyssey
- muro 4y ago
  The "ages" jumping weirdness just ruined it, IMHO. Beautiful middle part, though.
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending. Kubrick was no doubt a genius and mystery is a part of storytelling, the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut leaves so much room for mystique and interpretation that we can debate and discuss it forever but I did not find similar in the ending of 2001, it seemed like confusion for confusions sake with little deeper meaning.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      Arthur C Clarke is one of the greatest sci fi authors of all time and wrote the book in conjunction with the movie with Stanley Kubrick. They are meant to be consumed together. Read the book and the movie makes a lot more sense. There is virtually zero ambiguity if you read the book.
      - symlinkk 4y ago
        So what does the ending mean then?
        colordrops 4y ago
        He made it all the way to Jupiter, and figured he might as well check out the monolith despite the disaster of the mission so far. He took the pod to check it out. He was then taken through a portal in the monolith to the home system of the aliens that created the monolith. There, he was put in a simulation as best as could be created based on TV signals from earth. The simulation was of a hotel room in a particular TV show. The alien machinery then downloaded his mind, hence the aging sequence. He was then inserted into the substrate of spacetime, allowing him to move around the galaxy like an omnipotent god. He decided to go back to earth to help out humanity, but he was still very new to this upgrade, so he was like a baby, hence the fetus over earth, which was just metaphorical. His upgrade was the next step for humanity, just as the upgrade for the man-apes was, giving them the ability to use tools. This was all explained in very plain English in the book.
        muro 4y ago
        Wow. That's not at all what the movie did. Replacing the ending with "now go read the book" would have worked better
        kirevmaco 4y ago
        Thanks for bringing this up. Arthur C. Clarke was devastated at how the movie removed most of the explanations of what was going on, and walked out of the movie during the intermission: "Without consulting or confronting his co-creator, Kubrick cut a huge amount of Arthur’s voice-over explanation during the final edit... As it turned out, Arthur did not get to see the completed film until the US private premiere. He was shocked by the transformation. Almost every element of explanation had been removed. Reams of voice-over narration had been cut. Far from being a pseudo-documentary, the film was now elusive, ambiguous and thoroughly unclear. Close to tears, he left at the intermission..." (full article: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/01/close-tears-he-left-intermission-how-stanley-kubrick-upset-arthur-c-clarke https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/01/close-tears-he-...)
        colordrops 4y ago
      - aemreunal 4y ago
        Came here to say this. The book is fantastic in itself too and I view the movie more as a "visualization of the parts that Kubrick found the most interesting". I see those two as slightly different art pieces and love them both. The second book was also great but I think it lost a bit of what made 2001 special by the 3rd and 4th books. The books are actually quite easy to read and as much as I adore the movie of 2001, I think the book's ending is even more visually spectacular. Highly highly recommended.
        colordrops 4y ago
        I believe the ending had more abstract inverted color visuals, as special effects at the time we're not capable of depicting what Clarke described. I agree, I would have loved to see the scenes in the book.
    - hodgesrm 4y ago
      > Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending. I'm really glad to read this. Kubrick really lost me at the end. I thought I was just not getting it. The first 2/3s though are as good as any film I've ever seen.
jerrysievert 4y ago
brazil delicatessen both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  Brazil was a good movie, but, was far too unapproachable and would not make my top 10. I've never seen (or even heard of) delicatessen. Looks interesting, I'll check it out.
- fartcannon 4y ago
  Brazil is everything. I've never seen Delicatessen but if it's like these other films, I'll check it out. Anything I need to know (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it?
  - jerrysievert 4y ago
    > Anything I need to know (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it? it has the best sex scene I've ever seen in a movie. no nudity, just choreography.
  - boudin 4y ago
    It's a different style of movie, not really science fiction. I really like it though, really strong atmosphere. The city of lost children as well has a unique atmosphere
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  But not as hypnotic. Brazil is an amazing movie, but Gilliam is always distractingly manic. Blade Runner is graceful. The pacing, the characterisation, the imagery, and especially the music make it almost as much of a ballet/opera as a movie. It's not just science fiction, it's Wagnerian.
- clairity 4y ago
  i liked brazil, but it, blade runner, and 2001 weren't nearly as good as delicatessen. delicatessen is so darkly funny and deliciously memorable (ha). city of lost children, which came a little later by the same directors, is my all-time favorite in that dystopian future genre. it's probably a top 10 movie for me. plot, characters, the world you get sucked into, all top-notch. plus, you get the "brain in a vat" years before the matrix (which is also miles better than blade runner, 2001, and brazil).
davesque 4y ago
I can't say which films were the most influential, but here's a list of ones which were at least as influential IMHO and also sort of stand on their own: Star Wars Trilogy (epic sci-fi), 2001: A Space Odyssey (hard sci-fi), The Thing (body horror sci-fi), Alien (body horror/dystopian sci-fi), Mad Max (post apocalyptic sci-fi), E.T. (family sci-fi? lol), The Terminator (post apocalyptic), Howard the Duck (still reading?), Predator (dunno?) I could list a lot of others but I'll stop there.
devoutsalsa 4y ago
Personally I find Spaceballs to be much more memorable.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Me too, I can almost quote the movie. But I wouldn't call it 'great'. A great movie has some weight to it, it establishes a world, has a deeper story. It's original and exceptionally well executed. Spaceballs was great fun, good gags but it was still a parody lifting on the success of star wars. Without star wars it would not have been very funny at all. Fun and entertaining and great are not necessarily the same IMO.

willhinsa 4y ago

2001: A Space Odyssey

muro 4y ago
The "ages" jumping weirdness just ruined it, IMHO. Beautiful middle part, though.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending. Kubrick was no doubt a genius and mystery is a part of storytelling, the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut leaves so much room for mystique and interpretation that we can debate and discuss it forever but I did not find similar in the ending of 2001, it seemed like confusion for confusions sake with little deeper meaning.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Arthur C Clarke is one of the greatest sci fi authors of all time and wrote the book in conjunction with the movie with Stanley Kubrick. They are meant to be consumed together. Read the book and the movie makes a lot more sense. There is virtually zero ambiguity if you read the book.
    - symlinkk 4y ago
      So what does the ending mean then?
      - colordrops 4y ago
        He made it all the way to Jupiter, and figured he might as well check out the monolith despite the disaster of the mission so far. He took the pod to check it out. He was then taken through a portal in the monolith to the home system of the aliens that created the monolith. There, he was put in a simulation as best as could be created based on TV signals from earth. The simulation was of a hotel room in a particular TV show. The alien machinery then downloaded his mind, hence the aging sequence. He was then inserted into the substrate of spacetime, allowing him to move around the galaxy like an omnipotent god. He decided to go back to earth to help out humanity, but he was still very new to this upgrade, so he was like a baby, hence the fetus over earth, which was just metaphorical. His upgrade was the next step for humanity, just as the upgrade for the man-apes was, giving them the ability to use tools. This was all explained in very plain English in the book.
        muro 4y ago
        Wow. That's not at all what the movie did. Replacing the ending with "now go read the book" would have worked better
        kirevmaco 4y ago
        Thanks for bringing this up. Arthur C. Clarke was devastated at how the movie removed most of the explanations of what was going on, and walked out of the movie during the intermission: "Without consulting or confronting his co-creator, Kubrick cut a huge amount of Arthur’s voice-over explanation during the final edit... As it turned out, Arthur did not get to see the completed film until the US private premiere. He was shocked by the transformation. Almost every element of explanation had been removed. Reams of voice-over narration had been cut. Far from being a pseudo-documentary, the film was now elusive, ambiguous and thoroughly unclear. Close to tears, he left at the intermission..." (full article: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/01/close-tears-he-left-intermission-how-stanley-kubrick-upset-arthur-c-clarke https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/01/close-tears-he-...)
        colordrops 4y ago
    - aemreunal 4y ago
      Came here to say this. The book is fantastic in itself too and I view the movie more as a "visualization of the parts that Kubrick found the most interesting". I see those two as slightly different art pieces and love them both. The second book was also great but I think it lost a bit of what made 2001 special by the 3rd and 4th books. The books are actually quite easy to read and as much as I adore the movie of 2001, I think the book's ending is even more visually spectacular. Highly highly recommended.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        I believe the ending had more abstract inverted color visuals, as special effects at the time we're not capable of depicting what Clarke described. I agree, I would have loved to see the scenes in the book.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    > Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending. I'm really glad to read this. Kubrick really lost me at the end. I thought I was just not getting it. The first 2/3s though are as good as any film I've ever seen.

jerrysievert 4y ago

brazil delicatessen both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future.

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
Brazil was a good movie, but, was far too unapproachable and would not make my top 10. I've never seen (or even heard of) delicatessen. Looks interesting, I'll check it out.
fartcannon 4y ago
Brazil is everything. I've never seen Delicatessen but if it's like these other films, I'll check it out. Anything I need to know (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it?
- jerrysievert 4y ago
  > Anything I need to know (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it? it has the best sex scene I've ever seen in a movie. no nudity, just choreography.
- boudin 4y ago
  It's a different style of movie, not really science fiction. I really like it though, really strong atmosphere. The city of lost children as well has a unique atmosphere
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
But not as hypnotic. Brazil is an amazing movie, but Gilliam is always distractingly manic. Blade Runner is graceful. The pacing, the characterisation, the imagery, and especially the music make it almost as much of a ballet/opera as a movie. It's not just science fiction, it's Wagnerian.
clairity 4y ago
i liked brazil, but it, blade runner, and 2001 weren't nearly as good as delicatessen. delicatessen is so darkly funny and deliciously memorable (ha). city of lost children, which came a little later by the same directors, is my all-time favorite in that dystopian future genre. it's probably a top 10 movie for me. plot, characters, the world you get sucked into, all top-notch. plus, you get the "brain in a vat" years before the matrix (which is also miles better than blade runner, 2001, and brazil).

davesque 4y ago

I can't say which films were the most influential, but here's a list of ones which were at least as influential IMHO and also sort of stand on their own: Star Wars Trilogy (epic sci-fi), 2001: A Space Odyssey (hard sci-fi), The Thing (body horror sci-fi), Alien (body horror/dystopian sci-fi), Mad Max (post apocalyptic sci-fi), E.T. (family sci-fi? lol), The Terminator (post apocalyptic), Howard the Duck (still reading?), Predator (dunno?) I could list a lot of others but I'll stop there.

devoutsalsa 4y ago

Personally I find Spaceballs to be much more memorable.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Me too, I can almost quote the movie. But I wouldn't call it 'great'. A great movie has some weight to it, it establishes a world, has a deeper story. It's original and exceptionally well executed. Spaceballs was great fun, good gags but it was still a parody lifting on the success of star wars. Without star wars it would not have been very funny at all. Fun and entertaining and great are not necessarily the same IMO.