3 ms·
> but I can’t see how it’s defendable Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film. 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all tim
by garyrob 2y ago
> but I can’t see how it’s defendable
Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film.
2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals.
And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time#rank-9 https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates...
Could it possibly be that these directors know something you don't?
For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.
- ghusto 2y agoAppealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.
- garyrob 2y agoOoookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-making. Thank you.
- runsfromfire 2y agoHe wasn’t trying to convey the story you wanted him to convey so it’s poor filmmaking? I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?
- singleshot_ 2y agoI’ve seen the movie a few times and no part of it is confusing. The movie and the story it tells is coherent and, I dare say, pretty obvious. It’s unfortunate that you were not able to follow it, both because of your obvious dissatisfaction and because now you’re making a lot of bad posts.
- ghusto 2y agoThis film is definitely a trigger for me, so I'll concede that I'm over-reacting. However, I do not believe the ending was easy to follow, not just because I didn't understand it, but because I've never heard anybody who's only seen the film say they understood it either.