Best Movie Of All Time

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

If your answer doesn't rhyme with Brocter Branglelove then youv'e answered incorrectly

[mk 11]

I really like mk's sentence above especially the bolded part. But there is no way I can choose 2001 as even in my top 25. Why are guys jumping around in monkey suits for 15 minutes? What is the monolith? It's certainly not 'Man made' or even 'technology'... so what's the point? Also, why does the movie end with 15 minutes of a fly-over a desert with changing colors? Why is there a blinking eye changing colors? I seriously don't understand why people think this is the best movie ever... and I want to understand... so if someone could please take the time to answer these questions and even add answers to questions I didn't ask... I would love it. Again, I really appreciate everyones answers... nh.

From Kubrick's famous 1968 Playboy interview:"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."From a 1972 Arthur C. Clarke essay:"Soon after the movie was released, and the first cries of bafflement were being heard in the land, I made a remark that horrified the M-G-M top brass. 'If you understand 2001 on the first viewing,' I stated,'we will have failed.' I still stand by this remark, which does not mean that one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the Universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure--and sometimes more than one--behind everything that happens on the screen in 2001, and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simple-minded critics to the contrary. (You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the "right" one--whatever that means.)"There are literally countless essays offering interpretations of even the most minute details of the film. I've read a 20 page essay on the chess match, which constitutes like 5 seconds of screen time, just to give you some idea of how much analysis is out there and how rich the film actually is. I could regurgitate all I've read and my own opinions on the film, but you can seek out the work of more accomplished film scholars than me.http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/200...nd_the_Infinitehttp://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings.htmlThere are also lengthy discussions in Kubrick/film forums and several where Kubrick himself was rumored to be a frequent poster.But I think what is certainly clear is that Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick were both very, very interested in mythology, and one of the most interesting aspects of mythology is the way that various civilizations have responded to changes in technology. Joseph Campbell has written a great deal on this. And other scholars (Freud, Jung) have devoted a lot of time to modern man's ability to destory all of its species, in fact, all life on planet Earth with 'the bomb', technology which is unprecedented and terrifying, with gigantic ethical and evolutionary implications. It's obvious that Kubrick was consumed by these ideas, with his work on Dr. Strangelove and 2001. He was obsessed with science and technology, artificial intelligence, etc. and he tries to cram as many ideas into 2001 as possible.

[crowTrobot 2]

apocalypse nowhonorable mention - the seventh seal

[brvheart 1,752]

From Kubrick's famous 1968 Playboy interview:"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."From a 1972 Arthur C. Clarke essay:"Soon after the movie was released, and the first cries of bafflement were being heard in the land, I made a remark that horrified the M-G-M top brass. 'If you understand 2001 on the first viewing,' I stated,'we will have failed.' I still stand by this remark, which does not mean that one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the Universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure--and sometimes more than one--behind everything that happens on the screen in 2001, and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simple-minded critics to the contrary. (You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the "right" one--whatever that means.)"There are literally countless essays offering interpretations of even the most minute details of the film. I've read a 20 page essay on the chess match, which constitutes like 5 seconds of screen time, just to give you some idea of how much analysis is out there and how rich the film actually is. I could regurgitate all I've read and my own opinions on the film, but you can seek out the work of more accomplished film scholars than me.http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/200...nd_the_Infinitehttp://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings.htmlThere are also lengthy discussions in Kubrick/film forums and several where Kubrick himself was rumored to be a frequent poster.But I think what is certainly clear is that Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick were both very, very interested in mythology, and one of the most interesting aspects of mythology is the way that various civilizations have responded to changes in technology. Joseph Campbell has written a great deal on this. And other scholars (Freud, Jung) have devoted a lot of time to modern man's ability to destory all of its species, in fact, all life on planet Earth with 'the bomb', technology which is unprecedented and terrifying, with gigantic ethical and evolutionary implications. It's obvious that Kubrick was consumed by these ideas, with his work on Dr. Strangelove and 2001. He was obsessed with science and technology, artificial intelligence, etc. and he tries to cram as many ideas into 2001 as possible.

interesting... thank you. You've convinced me with this post that I should see the movie again... even though I am not looking forward to it.

[mbreon 0]

interesting... thank you. You've convinced me with this post that I should see the movie again... even though I am not looking forward to it.

I liked the movie much better after I had seen it for the second and third times. I have a friend that still can't sit through it , but he puts it on in the background as he's falling asleep (due to the lack of dialogue and classical soundtrack), so you always have that, haha.Also highly recommended is syncing up Pink Floyd's "Echoes" to the Jupiter sequence at the end of the film. Unlike the DSOTM/Wizard of Oz sync, Pink Floyd admits writing this song for this sequence in the movie. If you sync both of them up while on the effects of any conscience-altering substance, a good time ensues.

[dbcoyotes23 0]

Because of its inventive use of the most modern technology available at the time, i.e. crane shots and deep focus lighting;Because of its ongoing influence on American film language and its use of non-linear storytelling;Because of its rags to riches theme at the expense of lost youth and innocence;The greatest film of all time is "Citizen Kane".

[asytnik 0]

Gladiator...With Braveheart in a close 2nd