Kevin's Watch

AND - 2010 had a young and mega-attractive Helen Mirren, with whom I've become obsessed.

2010 would (I think) be in the top 10 best sequels.


Hmmmmmmmmmm....

-Godfather II
-Aliens
-Empire
-ST:II

Hell, I'd say it could go top 5.

I didn't like it. go figure.

I think 2010 is a great sequel, too. But I also think the same of Blair Witch 2, which puts me in an extreme minority. Syl's the only other Watcher I'm aware of who also liked it.

I think music and movies must be the two most intensely subjective forms of art, looking at all our disagreements here in Flicks and over in Vespers. We really are a diverse group, it's next to impossible for us to get a 100% consensus on anything.

Matrixman wrote:I think 2010 is a great sequel, too. But I also think the same of Blair Witch 2, which puts me in an extreme minority. Syl's the only other Watcher I'm aware of who also liked it.

I think music and movies must be the two most intensely subjective forms of art, looking at all our disagreements here in Flicks and over in Vespers. We really are a diverse group, it's next to impossible for us to get a 100% consensus on anything.

Nah, ya got another here for Blair Witch II. The original wasn't bad when it was believed to be a documentary, but, certainly doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. The sequel, while not really carrying on the story of the original was great in it's own right, and didn't pretend to be a documentary. It holds up very well in repeat viewing as a classic slasher flick. So, I suppose if the audience was expecting it to be like the original, they would be disappointed, but, if it's looked at as it's own film, with the Blair Witch mythos as a back drop, it's quite good.

Oops, forgot about you, man.

Well said! I thought the premise of Blair Witch 2 was pretty clever, and cleverly executed. And yeah, it's easier on the eyes than the original. There's nothing wrong with a movie that actually looks like a movie instead of a home video.

2010 better than 2001? ...

well, that is certainly a matter of opinion. And very difficult to compare as 2001 is 'art' and 2010 is a fun popcorn movie. Both are well done in their own style.
However I always put 2001 up there as a great movie overall...[/i]

Never seen 2010, but 2001, IMO is boring as hell. I've tried watching it no less than 5 times, because everyone always raves about how great it is, but it's a better sleep aid then the stongest tranquilizer as far as I'm concerned.

When I watch 2001, I skip the ridiculous monkey part at the first, watch the lunar sequence up to Dave leaving Discovery, then turn it off.

Neverending Story 2

SoulQuest1970 wrote:Neverending Story 2

good call.

I'm completely with those on the 2010 side over 2001. I've found 2001 an irritant for years. The pacing of 2010 is much better. I do like Kubrick though, but I found it dull. Then again, if I had seen it before Star Wars, I might feel differently. Then again, maybe not. 2010 has great stories, a great message at the end, and I was really hot for that younger Russian lady with the full lips.

And...this shot is just one of the coolest:

Usivius wrote:2010 better than 2001? ...

well, that is certainly a matter of opinion. And very difficult to compare as 2001 is 'art' and 2010 is a fun popcorn movie. Both are well done in their own style.
However I always put 2001 up there as a great movie overall...[/i]

I prefer 2010. 2001 is one of the most pretentious movies ever made.

Great pic, Cag.

dlbpharmd wrote:Great pic, Cag.

I can't forget how amazing the music was for that scene. So . . . dark and epic.

I haven't seen "2010" but I have seen "2001" and read the novel as well and did not really like either. I can see how "2001" (film) was innovative though.

Lord Mhoram wrote:I haven't seen "2010" but I have seen "2001" and read the novel as well and did not really like either. I can see how "2001" (film) was innovative though.

The novel for "2010" is actually better than the movie.

I saw 2001 on the big screen in '69--for it's time (ya spoiled young punks) it was pretty dang awesome!

dlbpharmd wrote:The novel for "2010" is actually better than the movie.

Oh Hell yes it is. It's a shame that the Tsien story didn't make it into the film.

2010 is a great, great film that doesn't suffer from the......Whatever the Hell it is that 2001 suffers from. I can't watch 2001 again (I'll fall asleep and hit my head on something), I could watch 2010 over and over again.

danlo wrote:I saw 2001 on the big screen in '69--for it's time (ya spoiled young punks) it was pretty dang awesome!

Dude - I was born in 1969.