How many masterpieces are there?

I still say 138.

2001 is definitely perfect.


Maybe Late Spring too.


But definitely 2001

Even the bit with the monkeys?

How about this guy?

__________________
HEI guys.

Movies I would say are perfect:
Day of Wrath 1943
Late Spring 1949
Journey to Italy 1954
The Naked Island 1960
La Jetee 1962


Others I would consider:
The Lodger 1927
The Passion of Joan of Arc 1928
Ma With a Movie Camera 1929
Salt for Svanetia 1930
Stray Dog 1949
The Music Room 1958
High and Low 1963
Le Bonheur 1965
The King of Comedy 1982
Stranger Than Paradise 1984
Vive L'Amour 1994
In the Mood for Love 2000
Uzak 2002
The Master 2012

Unquestionably.


The star gate sequence is way more less perfect for me than all those monkeys.


Those monkeys are ****ing stars.

He's got a few I'd seriously consider. Kane. Ambersons. Evil. But masterpiece is a high bar. And it should be, when we are worrying about things being the best of the best of the best.

Two films I know are great, but have never spoken directly to me.



My loss, I'm sure.

Maybe I should finally watch Le Bonheur tonight. I've had it lying around my house unwatched for years. Is it time?



Or maybe I should just sit very still and decompose instead.

Because it shouldnt be a half hour shorter.


Because a movies length isn't dictated by its narrative.


Because if it told the story you thought it should be telling in the time you thought it should tell it, it probably wouldn't even be any good, let alone a masterpiece.


Because you being bored by it has absolutely nothing to do with its greatness.


Because because because until the end of time


#stargate sequence

Is there something about this particular movie that makes you deeply insecure or something?


I'm fine if you don't like it much, I understand that since I used to hate it as well But if you want to start lobbing personal attacks simply because I happen to love this particular movie, I'm game dude. But I just want to make sure you're up for it since I find most people with your kind of empty and embarrassing bluster have pretty thin skin.

I've gone through different periods with this movie. When I was young I kind of hated it. Then I liked parts and disliked others. Then I began to view it for all the cinematic advances it made - and for these I classify it as a movie that borders on a work of art and indeed... a masterpiece.

I will admit that in recent viewings (on On-Demand) I fast forwarded through the psychedelic part.

This is just an interesting aside... recently I viewed the original Invaders From Mars (1953) and whenever they showed the alien sand trap that sucked humans under the ground there was this sound like a chorus of discordant voices making a kind of singing / moaning sound. In this movie the sound effect seemed almost cartoonish (at least in comparison to the sounds in 2001: A Space Odyssey), it reminded me of something out of a Dr. Seuss cartoon for some reason, but I believe it may have served as the direct inspiration for the disturbing choral sounds used in 2001 whenever the monolith appears.

Personally, the choral "moaning" in 2001 scared me as a kid. I still find it one of the most disturbing sounds in a movie, and will often mute the TV when it comes on. (I do love the classical music though!)

When I finally saw 2001 in the theater, rather than at home with all the distractions there, it was like the scales fell off my eyes - "OMG, I get it now, I see, I see and it's brilliant"

__________________
Completed Extant Filmographies: Luis Buñuel, Federico Fellini, Satyajit Ray, Fritz Lang, Andrei Tarkovsky, Buster Keaton, Yasujirō Ozu - (for favorite directors who have passed or retired, 10 minimum)

In its original release it was one of the most impactful films ever released.

It's still the high water mark of hard science fiction. This is Mt. Everest.

Is one of the apes visibly wearing a sneaker? Yes. Is it slow? Yes. Cerebral is often slow. The film is not in a rush to get in your pants and clumsily suck face in the back seat of daddy's car. The film is saying "look and see" and not "you are the main character." The film is slowly undressing themes, unpacking ideas, and showing the evolution of man from apes, to homo-technologicus, to star-child. It is a sort of slow melt of our view of ourselves, a viewing of our potential transformation. It is alien and off-putting and even frustrating, because this is what growing up involves.

It's about the evolution and de-evolution of man that happens at the same time. Man evolves in one aspect and devolves in another. One life is created and one is destroyed, sometimes at the same time and sometimes between the same person as one "becomes" himself. It didn't need about 120 of these minutes to tell us this.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!
He hid in the forest, read books with great zeal
He loved Che Guevera, a revolutionary veal
Cow Tse Tongue

Boring is one of the most easily dismissible criticisms one could throw at a film, especially when it's applied to a film with a reputation like 2001. Which isn't to say the criticism is entirely without merit, but most of the time when people use it, it's simply coming from attention barrier gaps on their part. Or you have the "not enough action" group. I had attention barriers when I first started getting into older cinema, but that's not a flaw with those films. It's something you grow accustomed to over time. 2001 could've been shorter, but that doesn't mean it should've been shorter. Like Jeanne Dielman, both films are immersive experiences you're meant to lose yourself in and letting them linger for a while helps in this regard. Trimming it up would've done more harm than good, and I don't think the film needed to be any shorter than it was.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

It's not even "slow" that bothers me. I can watch "slow" and "long" and all sorts of things the "not enough action" crowd despises. I just didn't like the way this story was told. Maybe "boring" isn't the right word. I was never engaged. I didn't like 2001's storytelling approach. I purposely watch a movie about housing costs because I like the financial banter so I think I can handle "no action" and "slow".

Maybe my narcissist comment was out of line so oops there. My bad. I apologize for the crass nature of the comment. The biggest film snob I've ever known goes to town on telling people why they're wrong about any criticism about 2001 A Space Odyssey so I guess it manifested as an acute hatred towards it. What I don't like is when I say I don't like it for being dull, people say I don't like it because I'm dumb. I don't like it because I don't like Kubrick. I watch plenty of films that require patience. I just don't know which ones they are because I'm patient through them because they're good so why would I be impatient?

Anyway I'd rather not get into a heated argument over something so trivial. I don't like arguing over why a film is good and I'm dumb for not liking it when these are the same people who tell me everyone can form any opinion.

2001 was interesting, but, a great movie? I don't think so. It 's mainly memorable, different from good or great. Back in THAT day, I had some ancestors who worked in the space program. Most of 2001 was like a visual rendition of a book that was published for NASA insiders, a procedure manual for being on a space voyage in that era. I have a copy in a carton in the basement. Do everything slow.....actuate procedure 2917......have lunch......take a space walk........check status of indicator 0947.....warm up dinner, etc. Kubrick could have had a career as a NASA writer, but that doesn't make much of a movie.

It looks nice. I can give it that. I was never engaged. The first half of Seven Samurai is not an exciting time, and I can watch it with zero problems. Human Condition I is a slow burn the whole time, and I love watching it. There are others that don't currently occur to me. I know they're out there though, so it's not that that bothers me. Film noir are typically slow and I always leap at the chance to watch one, although I don't love all of them.

One thing about the narcissist comment I realize is that I've known one person offline who actually likes it and he's a massive narcissistic snob. Most of the people I've known offline who enjoy watching movies really don't like it and only one of them is a narcissist, and her narcissism has nothing to do with film. I'll refrain from that comment now.

I'm usually against extremely long movies, but Stanley Kubrick is the exception. 2001 is a masterpiece that hypnotically pulls you in, and we experience the amazement and terror right along with our protagonist.