I'll just go sulk in the corner and watch the chimp chapter again ...


Moderators: sgt.null, dANdeLION
Well, you'll never hear me saying 2010 is "better" than 2001. I appreciate 2010 in its own right, but in no way does it touch 2001. I basically agree with what you say, that 2001 is art - a cool piece of modern art that I can look at and think endlessly about. 2010, on the other hand, tells its story in a very literal, straightforward manner. There's very little ambiguity to the proceedings since either Roy Scheider's narration or the other characters explain exactly what's going on. The only mystery in 2010 is the token presence of the Monolith, and even then, its grand purpose seems pretty much resolved by the end. 2010 also ends on a "happy" note, which I liked, too. But I bet that such a blatantly optimistic ending would have made Kubrick gag.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]
Dude, my parents hadn't met yet in 1969.Cagliostro wrote:dlbpharmd wrote:Dude - I was born in 1969.danlo wrote:I saw 2001 on the big screen in '69--for it's time (ya spoiled young punks) it was pretty dang awesome!
Me too!
Hey, I liked Temple of Doom.dlbpharmd wrote:Yeah, what was that Raiders movie, Temple of Doom? Whatever it was called, it blew.Fist and Faith wrote:The worst sequels ever made are the second Raiders and Highlander movies.