 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:42:03 -0000, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmail com> did spake, saying:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The main point was to demonstrate special
>> effects. The plot was secondary. That's why they spend so long on things
>> like showing space ships coming over the horizon (first matte painting),
>> pens floating in air, jogging around the inside of a centrifuge, and so
>> on.
>
> Cinema is a visual medium. And 2001 excels at this, with very powerful
> and
> poetic imagery: the famous opening with the sun rise from space at the
> sound
> of Richard Strauss' finest; the bone flowing into air and cutting to the
> ship;
> or the ships ballet in space with Blue Danube...
Which I don't think anyone here would deny.
> ironically, much more impacting than most CG orgies showing these days...
>
> the plot was secondary?! An enigmatic monolith sparking intelligence, a
> paranoid AI and a men's quest for survival going beyond the beyond
> should be
> enough...
The point I (and I think Andrew) is making is that none of this is really
made explicit; you yourself said that you had to read between the lines
and thus it may be possible to come away from the film with completely the
wrong conclusions (as per the ones I made-up) or just a state of confusion.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>
> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
Yes, it would. I can be *very* hard to please at times :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>
> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
Of all the movies I've *seen*, certainly over 1% were worth watching
over (for me). If I did an analysis (which I kind of could - I have a
record of almost all the movies I've seen in the last 8-9 years), it
would not surprise me in the least if that percentage were as high as 5.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
Who said she died? ;-)
And you know, if someone *wants* to die, I don't think his/her body
would automatically revolt, go into fly mode, and refuse to let her die...
In any case, your point has about as much validity as the criticism of
the virtual reality physics in The Matrix.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
> >> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
> >
> > That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
minded if I had never seen them...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
>> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
>
> Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)
>
Personally (and remember, this is just in my own experience) there are
so many good movies out there that losing the ones not worth watching
more than once doesn't limit my choices noticeably.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:47:33 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
>
>> You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only
>> rarely
>> see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to
>> sort
>> away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
>
> I have learned to not to judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case,
> a movie.
>
> I have been surprised in both directions. Movies which I was almost
> certain would be mediocre (but I didn't have anything better to do than
> to watch them) have surprised me for being unexpectedly enjoyable. Also
> many movies which I was rather sure I would like have been
> disappointments.
>
> It's just not possible to know in advance.
Examine first movie
|
Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
...
I'm joking of course; sort of.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
> 2.
Why has nobody mentioned the second film? Based on the second book.
Nowhere near as good as the first film, but nevertheless well-made and
enjoyable. It concerns the follow-up mission to find out what happened
to Discovery, answers most of the questions without being too bleedin'
obvious, and completes an open-ended story quite nicely with some new
ideas at the same time. It also explains why HAL was not mad in any
sense - a widespread misconception that always bugs me...
Happy New Year to y'all, by the way :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
deserve a second watching at some point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:52:03 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
Depends on who's providing the cheese.
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
>> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
>
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
>> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.
What I'm saying is that I apply critera to what I watch. I'm not saying I
won't watch anything that's 'banned' by the above; it'll just naturally
full lower on my list of priorities.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
