Vote for the best Best Picture ever

[Vraith]

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is the most over-looked film of all time.

I certainly overlooked it. Got about 1/2 an hour into it and couldn't bear to watch anymore of it. And I really enjoy the Class of Nuke 'em High and Toxic Avenger movies, so, it's not about cheezy "B" movies in general. (Or would that be Cheezy "C" or "D" movies )

Obviously, you simply lack fine aesthetic sensibilities, sensitivity to zeitgeist, and are mired in a morass of Platonic Ideals. The soundtrack alone stands as a sonic, post-modern "David," an aural eminence from which to survey the desolate plains in which all earlier compositions are rooted. The plaintive wail of "Puberty Loooove...puberty looo-uh-uhve" is a bleak, yet seductive Ante (and Anti)-Freudian lament, both shackling and liberating the libido, enforcing yet transcending the metaphysical and metabolic strictures of desire.
The penetration of the meat-bodied master of disguise into the vegetative weltenschahung...
Ok..I'll stop.

[Worm of Despite]

Well said. One of the strengths of 2001 for me has always been its seeming disregard for conventional perspective and character focus. The characters are secondary to the film's point, and the wider lens through which the story is viewed.

A true masterpiece, thought-provoking, fresh and utterly original in vision, which is so much more than can be said of many of the so-called best films on that list.

I have been saying this for years here. 2001 is not that great. And it's pretentious and overrated.

Wait, wait, wait. You two watch films together, in real life? You might want to watch each others' backs now...

And though I appreciate the piece's audacity, 2001 is probably one of my least favorite Kubrick pieces. I much prefer Clockwork Orange (my favorite movie for a time), or even Full Metal Jacket or The Shining. Then again, the last time I watched the film (around 2007), I had this inkling it would grow on me.

[Zarathustra]

I find it interesting you think a story constitutes a main character wanting something or some obstacle being there. The story goes across from the dawn of mankind to the first human who breaches the point of space which signifies a technological checkpoint for the aliens who've been guiding them from the beginning. The plot's there, goes from beginning to end; that's the point; not some character wanting something but an odyssey of discovery.

Ah . . . I haven't had this much fun in this forum since Wall-e.

Seriously, this is turning into a good discussion. I'm glad to see some passion about a movie that left me cold. I honestly do want to know what others love about it, and not simply to trash it.

Yes, I think a story is human drama. That means people wanting something, and the conflict involved in the difficulty of achieving that something. If something is important enough to make a movie about, then it should at least be important enough for characters in that movie to care about it. Why am I watching something that the characters themselves don't even seem engaged in? The problem here is that the audience cares more about anything in this movie than the characters do themselves. That's why it's not a story--it's a concept. A music video. The friggin' computer is more of a character than the humans. Wayfriend seems to think that a monolith is more of a character than the humans. Sorry--nice try. But that's like saying the flaming eye of Sauron was a good character. If inanimate objects are more of a character than your characters, then it's a big clue that this is not a story.

With that said, I have to admit that this movie attempted some admirable things. It tried to have some "deep" ideas. I glossed over it in my last post, but the issue of artificial intelligence and the debate over their status as sentient beings is a fascinating issue. But I think Asimov and Star Trek (Next Generation) did it much better than 2001. Data was a character. HAL was closer to a (lame) monster.

As for the idea that aliens are driving our evolution . . . it's just lazy. And it diminishes the very thing that is (or should be) truly amazing about this movie: our odyssey of discovery. This alien cop-out idea ignores the fact that animals naturally compete for mates and resources. They don't need "miraculous" intervention from aliens to know you can use a bone to knock someone over the head. This kind of science fiction is so stupid, it's like saying that you need a God to explain lightning; it's science fiction that is no better than superstition. It's a bit ad hoc and overly complicated to assume that humans needed aliens to push them into a direction that they naturally achieved themselves. That's an inexcusable diminishment of the power and wonder of natural selection and evolution. Science fiction shouldn't dumb down reality. It shouldn't make something wonderful seem ad hoc. Instead, it should bring out the real, true wonder of our scientific discoveries, instead of crapping all over them just to make it "dramatic" (. . . but then failing as a drama).

A bit more interesting--and connected to the AI theme later on--would have been to suppose that aliens taught humans how to talk, not how to bash each other over the head. Consciousness. Intelligence. That would have been a tad more plausible, since humans are the only intelligent species on earth. And then it would have played right into the theme of mankind creating intelligence with AI, replicating and mirroring this earlier act. That would have still dumbed-down the concept of evolution, but at least it would have been more consistent.

What makes you think it was even trying to be a drama, or that constitutes it being good or not if it is/isn't? The characters have no need to be developed; it's extraneous and outside the point of the film.

Well, if it's not a drama, what is it? A fictional documentary?

I'm reminded of Adaptation (by my favorite screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman). The main character wants to write a story where none of the characters find resolution, or have big dreams, or do anything significant . . . because, he proposed, life is sometimes like that, rather than (in his opinion) how it is portrayed in "dramas." So he goes to a screen-writing convention, and the speaker tells him:

Robert McKee: Nothing happens in the world? Are you out of your fucking mind? People are murdered every day. There's genocide, war, corruption. Every fucking day, somewhere in the world, somebody sacrifices his life to save someone else. Every fucking day, someone, somewhere makes a conscious decision to destroy someone else. People find love, people lose it. For Christ's sake, a child watches her mother beaten to death on the steps of a church. Someone goes hungry. Somebody else betrays his best friend for a woman. If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life. And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don't have any use for it. I don't have any bloody use for it.

Figure out what the film is trying to do before you criticize it.

And yes, it is just a film. Kubrick wasn't trying to write a treatise on philosophy or science; he collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, not Carl Sagan. Though, to the film's credit, it's very realistic as far as outer space goes (especially compared to stuff preceding it).

Actually, he did consult Carl Sagan. And Sagan is the one who convinced him not to use anthropomorphic aliens . . . which is why he went with the black monoliths. So this "fantastic" symbol of alien intelligence was just a cop-out because they couldn't realistically depict aliens.

Anyway, I will criticize this film on whatever grounds I want. You keep attacking me, while all I'm doing is attacking this movie. Please stop.

The filmmakers themselves wanted people to find their own meaning in this film, and I did. I called "bullshit" on it.

Obviously, you simply lack fine aesthetic sensibilities, sensitivity to zeitgeist, and are mired in a morass of Platonic Ideals. The soundtrack alone stands as a sonic, post-modern "David," an aural eminence from which to survey the desolate plains in which all earlier compositions are rooted. The plaintive wail of "Puberty Loooove...puberty looo-uh-uhve" is a bleak, yet seductive Ante (and Anti)-Freudian lament, both shackling and liberating the libido, enforcing yet transcending the metaphysical and metabolic strictures of desire.
The penetration of the meat-bodied master of disguise into the vegetative weltenschahung...
Ok..I'll stop.

Don't stop! That was great!

[sindatur]

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is the most over-looked film of all time.

I certainly overlooked it. Got about 1/2 an hour into it and couldn't bear to watch anymore of it. And I really enjoy the Class of Nuke 'em High and Toxic Avenger movies, so, it's not about cheezy "B" movies in general. (Or would that be Cheezy "C" or "D" movies )

Obviously, you simply lack fine aesthetic sensibilities, sensitivity to zeitgeist, and are mired in a morass of Platonic Ideals. The soundtrack alone stands as a sonic, post-modern "David," an aural eminence from which to survey the desolate plains in which all earlier compositions are rooted. The plaintive wail of "Puberty Loooove...puberty looo-uh-uhve" is a bleak, yet seductive Ante (and Anti)-Freudian lament, both shackling and liberating the libido, enforcing yet transcending the metaphysical and metabolic strictures of desire.
The penetration of the meat-bodied master of disguise into the vegetative weltenschahung...
Ok..I'll stop.

LOL, I feel like I'm supposed to be feeling bruised, but somehow I don't feel anything broken

[Worm of Despite]

Yes, I think a story is human drama. That means people wanting something, and the conflict involved in the difficulty of achieving that something. If something is important enough to make a movie about, then it should at least be important enough for characters in that movie to care about it. Why am I watching something that the characters themselves don't even seem engaged in?

Well most of the film is the business of going to the moon, finding the monolith buried there, spaceflight stuff—all with astronauts. They’re going to be professionals to the utmost extent. The way they reacted was entirely in character by me. I don’t see how they don’t seem engaged or caring when they’re talking in private about Hal or when he’s trying to save his life by getting back to the station and shutting Hal off. Why does it make them “more character” if they were to act less like what they are—astronauts? It’s a very serious matter, space travel, and these are serious folks.

Data was a character. HAL was closer to a (lame) monster.

Why should Hal be anything more than what he is? Why would you want a Data-like AI on 2001: A Space Odyssey? To me it’s incredibly distinctive, to have this disembodied voice, that we know is a computer, slowly be overcome by fears and irrationality latent in its artificial intelligence, and then turning on its own masters. I don’t think it had been attempted in such a memorable manner until 2001. What’s the point of developing Hal further? His function in the plot is that and need be only that.

A bit more interesting--and connected to the AI theme later on--would have been to suppose that aliens taught humans how to talk, not how to bash each other over the head.

I understand your qualms about the aliens and evolution: the film is a film. It’s not trying to show us evolution in the clearest sense; then it becomes a boring, drawn-out Discovery Channel program, nor is it about stuffing in layered plot or characters. That’s not needed. It’d just be a mess akin to Stephen King’s TV-mini-series The Shining. And teaching humans how to talk would be boring in a movie. Give ‘em that fucking stick. Let ‘em bash each other and let it lead to war and tools—both things that form a symbiotic relationship.

As for it not being drama: it’s science fiction. It’s not extrapolative. It’s descriptive. It presents a metaphor for what we are going through now; for that sense of discovery and answers we want to find. This is usually what science fiction does: describes how we feel now or is a thought-experiment.

And why is it a sin or a “cop-out” if film techniques at the time could not replicate aliens? Would you want god-awful aliens or people in make-up running about? Look at Star Trek. The original, 60s series. Let’s be serious.

And I’m not attacking you; I have my own views on the film (clearly), and am expressing them. Deal with it.

[Zarathustra]

And I’m not attacking you; I have my own views on the film (clearly), and am expressing them. Deal with it.

I have no problem with you expressing your opinions on the film. I have a problem with you telling me what to do:

Figure out what the film is trying to do before you criticize it.

And:

Deal with it.

And calling my opinions "shit"

I think "boring" is shit criticism

I asked nicely. I'll do so again: please stop.

[Worm of Despite]

And I’m not attacking you; I have my own views on the film (clearly), and am expressing them. Deal with it.

I have no problem with you expressing your opinions on the film. I have a problem with you telling me what to do:

Figure out what the film is trying to do before you criticize it.

And:

Deal with it.

And calling my opinions "shit"

I think "boring" is shit criticism

I asked nicely. I'll do so again: please stop.

But mostly, it's boring.

Repeating that after what I said about the word "boring" was definitely a gibe at me, but you don't see me bringing it to light. If you can't handle the debate, fine. I don't really care for debates myself, but I can definitely participate them. If you don't want to continue, all right, but don't play the "I'm attacking you" card because I'm doing no such. If I think calling a film "boring" and nothing else is shit criticism I'll say so, and it has no reflection or bearing on you.

I've not told you to do anything. When I said "deal with it" it's up to you if me expressing my opinions bothers you. But that's all I'm doing (or see myself doing). They'll remain here until KW closes down (hopefully never) or I leave (damn addictive web site).

And I think it's a valid point for a person to figure out what a film is trying to accomplish before they criticize it. Again, no bearing on you.

[Vraith]

I'm glad you enjoyed my little blurb, malik, and sin.
I'd like to know how this film was perceived (if even seen) in the far east at the time because:
Malik said "story is human drama" (or somesuch). But it is my understanding that the 'western' format of story with basically, conflict, rising action, climax, denoument hardly exists at all in eastern stories(until fairly recently...this is what I was told, though the woman has a phd in that stuff, so should have some clue).
Visually, I liked it. Story-wise...not so much. Aliens raising us up? Silly (even if it actually happened, if I see one of those aliens, I'm gonna tell them it was silly)...but I'm not sure that's exactly what the story was? Been many years now. (I like the sort of related sf idea of common roots with aliens through dna, the science version of "we are stardust"..different topic, though)

[matrixman]

On 2001, there is alot of folks who hate it, and alot who think it's one of the best films ever made. In my experience I've found most of those who love it, experienced in theaters when it first came out, while most of us who weren't at all impressed by it saw it later, at home. So, it could be the theater experience (and being cutting edge effects when first seeing it) are the reasons people love it.

I'm an exception to that rule or theory, or whatever. I first saw 2001 in the worst way a big screen movie should be seen: on an old CRT tv set (early 80's) with mono sound. Oh, and the movie itself had a faded look, with an ugly yellow hue, and there was dust (and hair - gag!) on the image, since this was well before the time of remastering and restoring movies to pristine condition, that we take for granted today. Despite the less than ideal viewing conditions, 2001 still reached through that crappy tv screen and mesmerized me that day. I had been blown away by Star Wars in theatres, yet watching 2001 on the humble tv, I knew I was seeing something special too, but special in a completely different way.

[The Dreaming]

2001 Is a movie I think people are allowed to hate. It isn't an easy movie. It doesn't speak the same cinematic language as most movies. It doesn't follow any of the familiar patterns or diction of the standard formulae for narrative. I think it is also great.

What is it about? only the most monumental question of all. What does it mean to be human? Nearly all art takes a look at this question. Science Fiction shows it in a very singular way. 2001 does it by giving us an experience that is not human, that is alien. That is beyond the normal bounds of our comprehension. What's more, we are given a message from an alien race that is clearly trying as hard as it can to communicate with us.

While 2001 may not have the science *perfect* I think it comes a whole fuckload closer to what is really possible than any movie made before or since.

While many are bored by this movie, I am thrilled. I am not the only one. A movie that drew an instant comparison to this one in my mind was Darren Aronofski's The Fountain. It's a movie with so much depth, complexity and texture, people are bound to hate it. Aronofski may also be the most talented director since Kubrick.

[Loredoctor]

2001 Is a movie I think people are allowed to hate. It isn't an easy movie. It doesn't speak the same cinematic language as most movies. It doesn't follow any of the familiar patterns or diction of the standard formulae for narrative. I think it is also great.

I'm kind of uncomfortable about some of these comments. When I first saw 2001, I got the film. It's not that I do not like the movie because of its language - I like the movie because of its style, and unlike Malik23 I like the movie because of its message (I happen to love 2010).

[Zarathustra]

What is it about? only the most monumental question of all. What does it mean to be human? Nearly all art takes a look at this question. Science Fiction shows it in a very singular way. 2001 does it by giving us an experience that is not human, that is alien. That is beyond the normal bounds of our comprehension. What's more, we are given a message from an alien race that is clearly trying as hard as it can to communicate with us.

You don't think it cheapens "what it means to be human" to propose that humans are nothing more than an experiment of aliens? How does that teach us anything about what it means to be human? That tells us that humanity is nothing more than HAL: an artifact. The aliens weren't "trying as hard as it could to communicate," they were altering our evolution to make us what we are. You might as well tell a Creation myth, if you're going that route. We've already had stories that tell us Higher Beings created us. That's what religion is for. I read/watch science fiction to tell me something new--and more importantly, something scientifically accurate. Humanity evolved just like every other species on this planet: without the otherworldly aid of Higher Beings. To suppose otherwise isn't scientific, it's superstition.

[Worm of Despite]

What is it about? only the most monumental question of all. What does it mean to be human? Nearly all art takes a look at this question. Science Fiction shows it in a very singular way. 2001 does it by giving us an experience that is not human, that is alien. That is beyond the normal bounds of our comprehension. What's more, we are given a message from an alien race that is clearly trying as hard as it can to communicate with us.

You don't think it cheapens "what it means to be human" to propose that humans are nothing more than an experiment of aliens?

I look at it as guiding the humans, and most of what they did to get to the point of space exploration was their own inventions and technology. The aliens gave a loving nudge here or there, but the rest was always within our capacity.

[Rigel]

I don't even see it as "aliens guiding us", or that there are aliens at all (although the comment about Carl Sagan recommending against anthropomorphic aliens, and Kubrick choosing the monolith instead, doesn't help my POV).

Rather, the central point of the movie is more about enlightentment, and Intelligence leading to the Divine.

If you want to call it a "creation myth," that's fine, as long as you understand it isn't about the creation of Man, but of God.

[Worm of Despite]

Rather, the central point of the movie is more about enlightentment, and Intelligence leading to the Divine.

I agree; that's what it's about at the core level, but there is some entity or entities that placed the monoliths as they approached readiness for their technological breakthroughs. Perhaps "guide" was too simple a word for that. Moreover, it seems apparent to me somehow they actively transformed Bowman into an evolved being steps beyond the current human model, and now it's Bowman's job to go down there and spread it about (or whatever Clarke did with the idea, I forget). Maybe they were there, maybe not; it seems to me they hint at him being observed. Perhaps he isn't being observed, and that whole sequence was just the transformation running through on its own. I don't know. I'm glad he left it open.

[danlo]

I don't know if I liked this thread better when people couldn't figure out what Best Picture was, or not...

Perhaps he isn't being observed, and that whole sequence was just the transformation running through on its own. I don't know.

That's the way I always saw it...

[Vraith]

(although the comment about Carl Sagan recommending against anthropomorphic aliens, and Kubrick choosing the monolith instead, doesn't help my POV).

Have I been confused for 30 years? Did the book come after the film? Because the book certainly had monoliths, that was part of the whole point. If so, why'd Kubrick have to ask Sagan anything?

[Worm of Despite]

I don't know if I liked this thread better when people couldn't figure out what Best Picture was, or not...

Just notice how I was involved in both the misunderstanding and now where this is currently at. Bwa ha ha ha! In two weeks (or less) I will have you all discussing cocker spaniels in this thread.

[Vraith]

I don't know if I liked this thread better when people couldn't figure out what Best Picture was, or not...

Just notice how I was involved in both the misunderstanding and now where this is currently at. Bwa ha ha ha! In two weeks (or less) I will have you all discussing cocker spaniels in this thread.

Cocker spaniels? No one would ever talk about cocker spaniels anywhere, let alone in a thread about best pictures (whatever THAT is).
After all, what good is a cocker spaniel? They're so small, you might as well get a cat. Especially since cats are less needy. And their barks..so piercing and whiny. And you can tell they're stupid..if they weren't then they'd have ears that stand up. Border Collies (which are SMART dogs) treat cocker spaniels like sheep. Which they should. I wonder if you can make yarn out of spaniel fur? So obviously, you're wrong. No one would spend more than a sentence talking about cocker spaniels...unless you start a thread about them. Which no one would post in. There simply is no reason to waste words talking about cocker spaniels.

[Rigel]

Have I been confused for 30 years? Did the book come after the film?

Yes.

Clarke wrote the book because nobody could understand the movie