Kevin's Watch

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

I'll be watching the chimp chapter with you. I've blathered on about 2001 enough times that most people probably know I love this movie to death.

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]

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. (Wonder if he ever saw the movie.)

dlbpharmd wrote:

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.

Me too!

Cagliostro wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote:

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.

Me too!

Dude, my parents hadn't met yet in 1969.

back on topic...the Ring part Two was drivel...I loved the first one (Both versions) but number two sucked.

Also, the American Pie sequels were no good. The first one was funny; the next two, just tried to recreate the jokes.

The worst sequels ever made are the second Raiders and Highlander movies.

Fist and Faith wrote:The worst sequels ever made are the second Raiders and Highlander movies.

Yeah, what was that Raiders movie, Temple of Doom? Whatever it was called, it blew.

Yes, that's the excrement I was referring to.

**NO! No more Kate Capshaw screaming! Somebody kill me now!** obligatory emoticon>

dlbpharmd wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:The worst sequels ever made are the second Raiders and Highlander movies.

Yeah, what was that Raiders movie, Temple of Doom? Whatever it was called, it blew.

Hey, I liked Temple of Doom. It was the first Indiana Jones movie I saw, and I thought it was great.

(We do not mention that thing that came after Highlander. It was a figment of your imagination...a bad dream...)

--A

Agreed, Avatar.

On which count?

--A

Mabye I'm just strange, but why the hell was Blues Brothers 2000 number four? How was it WORSE than the Phantom Menace?

Egad, I stayed away from Blues Brothers 2000.

Sorry, Av, I side with the other fellas regarding Temple of Doom. I hated, hated this movie! (In my best Roger Ebert voice)

Another Spielberg-directed sequel that filled me with hate, or at least deep disappointment, was Jurassic Park: The Lost World. I loved the first movie, but this sequel was just too dark and nasty (which was the same problem with Temple of Doom).

I'm not against dark and nasty movies per se, as something like Schindler's List certainly warranted a sombre treatment. But come on, Mr. Spielberg, not when the subject matter is dinosaurs and matinee adventure serials.

Dark and nasty? Haha, I would never classify Temple as that.

--A

Avatar wrote:On which count?

--A

Temple of Doom is great. Much better than Last Crusade, which was really a remake of Raiders.

Balon wrote:Mabye I'm just strange, but why the hell was Blues Brothers 2000 number four? How was it WORSE than the Phantom Menace?

Because Phantom Menace isn't that bad.

Yeah.

--A

dlbpharmd wrote:Because Phantom Menace isn't that bad.