Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject []
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • File : 1272669332.gif-(79 KB, 296x442, 2001_A_Space_odyssey.gif)
    79 KB Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:15 No.8836238  
    This review of 2001: A Space Odyssey review is fucking fantastic.

    http://confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A-Space-Odyssey.php

    inb4 "too deep for you" bullshit.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:17 No.8836269
    If you want a good movie review see >>8835423
    >> House M.D. !RsT5bxOQxs 04/30/10(Fri)19:25 No.8836435
         File1272669909.png-(378 KB, 381x485, 1234354036466.png)
    378 KB
    >>8836238
    >>8836238
    I'm not even a big Kubrick fan but this review already has me raging. OP is a faggot.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:34 No.8836623
    >>8836435
    ahhahahha suck it, kubrickfag
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:34 No.8836635
    2dp4u.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:35 No.8836641
    >Confused Matthew review
    >fantastic
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:42 No.8836779
    >Implying I couldn't just fast-forward through your reviews and still miss nothing.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:44 No.8836810
    read the book, watch the film, STFU.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:45 No.8836844
    we know Matthew posts on /tv/
    so this is just pathetic
    also, yes, I'm sorry to say so
    but 2001 is in fact TOO DEEP FOR YOU MATTHEW
    it's true
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:46 No.8836856
    if you don't like 2001 then your opinion on movies is certifiably not worth listening to
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:47 No.8836872
    it blows my mind that this movie was made before we even knew what Earth looked like from space
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:47 No.8836877
    >>8836856

    This man speaks the truth.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:47 No.8836879
    >http://confu...

    Stopped reading there.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:48 No.8836896
    >>8836872
    or the surface of the moon, or the whole zero gravity thing
    movie was pretty amazing in those respects
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:49 No.8836906
    >>8836856

    not really, faggot
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:50 No.8836924
    Sorry, but I avoid listening to the opinions of people who have their own theme song.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:50 No.8836938
    >>8836924
    What about sxephil?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:52 No.8836976
    >>8836938
    sxephil is fucking hilarious man
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:52 No.8836986
    >>8836906
    If you don't like Kubrick films, or at least recognise them as as a worthy cinematic achievement, you have a terrible taste in films.

    No exceptions.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:53 No.8836992
         File1272671583.gif-(60 KB, 320x240, black_matt_parkman.gif)
    60 KB
    >>8836976
    >> CIingingMars !nDHcugKusw 04/30/10(Fri)19:54 No.8837015
    >>8836856
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:54 No.8837031
    >>8836986
    Even Fear and Desire? Even Killer's Kiss?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:54 No.8837035
    >>8836986

    If you don't like Kubrick films, or at least recognise them as as a worthy cinematic achievement, you aren't a pretentious faggot who pretends to like boring, shitty movies to appear deep.

    fixed that for you
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:55 No.8837049
         File1272671747.jpg-(69 KB, 600x742, so_you're_saying_i_didn't_get_(...).jpg)
    69 KB
    He keeps calling it a movie and it's pissing me off.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:55 No.8837051
    >>8837035

    Ok, tell me what films YOU like then.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:56 No.8837060
         File1272671780.jpg-(11 KB, 200x200, n586690469_4862.jpg)
    11 KB
    >Confused Matthew
    >Thinks Star Trek Nemesis is a great movie
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:56 No.8837061
    >>8837035
    >If you don't like Kubrick films, or at least recognise them as as a worthy cinematic achievement, you aren't a pretentious faggot who pretends to like boring, shitty movies to appear deep.
    >don't like
    Stupid anonymous.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)19:58 No.8837091
    2001 has some amazing stuff, like the moon base, HAL 9000, no sound in space, the music and others.

    But when I have to watch a LSD trip for 10 minutes, then I don't know...
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:00 No.8837139
    Wow, I actually made it ~8:30 into it, and then I heard...
    >"THE MOVIE STARTS WHEN THE PLOT STARTS!"

    I even made it through >"LANDSCAPE. LANDSCAPE. LANDSCAPE. LANDSCAPE."

    But that was just enough.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:00 No.8837143
    >>8837060
    well, he is confused.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:02 No.8837174
    >>8837061
    bitches don't know about my double negative
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:06 No.8837247
    I tried to watch this before.

    This movie is flawed, it goes on too long, and could be edited down.

    However, Mathew thinks there is no point to the beginning of man segment. Which is so monumentally stupid, I can't even begin to understand why anyone would pay any attention to him.
    >> CIingingMars !nDHcugKusw 04/30/10(Fri)20:07 No.8837268
    >>8837060

    really? god that guy must be a retard
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:07 No.8837282
    I don't think he understands how fucking amazing those "boring scenes" were back then.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:10 No.8837318
    >>8837247
    When the only thing you can say about a movie is that it was too long and boring the problem is you. I mean, a movie can actually be too long and boring, but that's more related to the amount of ideas being introduced than the rhythm or the pace of the images.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:12 No.8837356
    >>8837318
    Yeah. The beginning segment doesn't have a lot going on, I think Kubrick spends too much time on it, but Mathew really thinks it was all pointless and has no connection to the rest of the movie.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:15 No.8837409
    I saw it for the first time a month ago and I don't give a shit about Kubrick, and it was amazing
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:16 No.8837438
    >>8836238
    I cant so much other than yeah i would be board and confused if i didnt know what was going on
    why im indifferent is that i only saw like the last 30 minutes of the film.
    Also i think the reason Kubrick made i t that way was he was trying to stay close to the book or something and it was mainly for fans of the book
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:18 No.8837471
    wow he really doesn't understand the point of the landscapes?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:19 No.8837483
    >>8837438
    >doesn't know that he book and movie were made simultaneously
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:19 No.8837489
    >>8837268

    he also thinks back to the future part 2 is the worst sequel ever made.

    Just...no.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:21 No.8837518
    >>8837483
    wait but it had many other sequels book wise
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:21 No.8837528
    >>8837438
    >Also i think the reason Kubrick made i t that way was he was trying to stay close to the book or something and it was mainly for fans of the book

    That's wrong. Clarke and Kubrick worked together in the screenplay, so in this case the movie came at the same time than the novel. Clarke had a short story in which the basic idea of the movie was already present though.

    But anyway, the writer and the director didn't agree on how to approach the story and Clarke wrote the novel to give his version of the whole thing. Actually, the novel is much less ambiguous and gives a straightforward explanation of the plot, something that Kubrick wanted to avoid.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:23 No.8837551
    Get off /tv/ Confused Matthew. No one likes you.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:23 No.8837555
    you see, the landscape is everyone seeing that the movie is great, and the monolith is confusedmatthew thinking that the sequence is pointless and making everyone call him an idiot
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:25 No.8837578
         File1272673519.png-(121 KB, 240x249, 1223426904927.png)
    121 KB
    i think confused matthew is the caucasian equivalent of armond white.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:25 No.8837583
         File1272673538.jpg-(10 KB, 249x256, 1272177667427.jpg)
    10 KB
    >my face when redlettermedia was 100x better than confused mathew
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:29 No.8837638
    Matthew can't tell us often enough how boring this movie is, but the irony is that 2001 is alot easier to get through than that shitty review.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:31 No.8837672
    I would have no problem with his opinion if he could properly express it instead of going all HURR DURR in the review.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:32 No.8837702
         File1272673954.jpg-(167 KB, 624x352, karibyronmad.jpg)
    167 KB
    ITT: Kubrickfags mad
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:35 No.8837747
    >>8837702
    not really. i didn't even watch 2001 until a few months ago and didn't even know much about Kubrick, but i though it was okay. i think the main problem with his review is that it's all nonsensical.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:36 No.8837768
    The bit with the apes is crucial to understanding one of the plotlines of the movie, it sets up events which come later in the film. Confused Mathew is an idiot if he thinks that the opening scenes are totally bereft of any meaning or purpose and that the plot doesn't kick in until the dialogue begins.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:37 No.8837785
    >>8837035
    You guys should really expand your vocabulary a bit.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:38 No.8837809
         File1272674339.jpg-(47 KB, 400x593, Kubrick01.jpg)
    47 KB
    Stanley Kubrick was smarter than the majority of the internet.
    itt: most intelligent people read books instead.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:40 No.8837833
    >>8837809
    Well, I can agree to that (that he was probably smarter than me). But just because he was smart doesn't mean that I have to like his movie.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:40 No.8837836
    Eh, it's just too long.

    You could edit it down a good bit and not really lose anything.

    Same with There will be blood
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:40 No.8837840
    >>8836238
    Its not deep at all once this guy explains what the monolith is
    it makes perfect sense

    sorry I couldn't find the exact link but if you look around you'll find him talking about 2001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5UcJt6RoIs
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:41 No.8837871
    What makes him a bad reviewer is that he spends most of his time criticizing Kubrick fans (and second guessing what they would say to his review) than he does on actually critiquing the film in any meaningful way.

    He seems incapable of reviewing the film for what it is. Sure he has plenty of comebacks for all the imaginary rebukes like "Too deep", "You need everything explained" etc. He assumes that those stock phrases are the only way Kubrick fans can defend the movie which simply isn't true. He's only good at knocking down arguments that he's putting in 2001 fans' mouths.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:41 No.8837874
    Confused Matthew is a raging homosexual and a huge fan of the Twilight movies.

    Why do people keep posting his shit?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:41 No.8837875
    >>8837809
    If he is so smart then why is he dead?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:43 No.8837893
    >>8837836
    >You could edit it down a good bit and not really lose anything.
    >and not really lose anything.
    You're completely wrong actually. Well, maybe some of 2001's opening could have been trimmed a little bit, but it's certainly not the case for TWBB.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:44 No.8837916
    >>8837875
    suicide is preferable to sharing the planet with idiots
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:44 No.8837926
    >>8837893


    nah dude I am completely right and it is certainly the case for TWBB
    >> Juror 8 !xgfthx7VNc 04/30/10(Fri)20:46 No.8837963
    >>8837926
    What could have been cut from TWBB?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:47 No.8837967
    That review is incredibly annoying, because he misses the point so many times. I'm not saying that the film is somehow too deep for him (that's exactly what he want sot goad you into saying, thus proving his point), but there are certainly elements of it which he has not picked up on.

    A lot of his negativity is displayed towards a strawman version of the film's fansbase. If the film was complete obscure and was not critically acclaimed (or if Kubrick fans simply did not exist) he would have nothing to say about the film other than repeating "this is boring", which in itself is boring.

    I find the film a little slow in places myself (although overall I like it), but I'd rather watch it five times back to back than sit through his excuse for a review again.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:47 No.8837969
    >>8837926
    >What could have been cut from 2001?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:48 No.8837986
    >>8837967
    >want sot goad

    Er, that should have come out as 'wants to goad'.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:49 No.8838004
    >>8837986
    It sounds better with want sot goad actually.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:49 No.8838005
    >>8837926
    What could have been cut from the movie, while still retaining the uncanny atmosphere and the sense of scale?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:49 No.8838007
    >>8837963


    long boring shots of landscape.

    leave some, but there didn't need to be so many
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:50 No.8838008
    >>8837969
    I'm not him, but the beginning of man segment could be shorted considerably. We just need to see the apes yell at each other, find the monolith and use the clubs.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:50 No.8838018
    >>8837926
    You're one of those "not enough stuff happened in the movie" guys, aren't you?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:51 No.8838029
    >>8838018


    You're one of those pretentious hipster douches aren't you?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:52 No.8838042
    >>8838007
    There did actually. They helped establish the mood of the piece. And I knew you were going to say "boring" at some point, that seems to be the one and only criticism you guys can come up with when it comes to films like these.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:52 No.8838043
    >>8838008
    But how long is that part that annoys people so much, 10 minutes?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:53 No.8838060
    >>8838029
    Haha, and I KNEW you were just waiting to say "pretentious hipster" at some point! You guys are incredibly predictable.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:54 No.8838077
    >>8838042


    There didn't actually.

    Wow arguing is fun!
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:54 No.8838079
    >>8838060
    Haha, and I KNEW that you KNEW that I was just waiting to say "pretentious hipster" at some point! You guys are incredibly predictable.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:54 No.8838085
    >>8838029
    >implying you know what those words mean
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:55 No.8838105
    >>8838029
    >You're one of those pretentious hipster douches aren't you?

    See what you've done, right, is confused 'baselessly insulting someone's tastes' with 'offering salient criticism of the work being discussed'.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:55 No.8838107
    Looks like a Nolanfag has fucked up another thread.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:56 No.8838125
    >>8838060


    Well as long as we're trading generic insults I thought I'd respond in kind
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:56 No.8838126
    He pretty much missed the whole point of the first part of the movie, not worth reading the rest of the review.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:57 No.8838139
    >>8838029
    What makes you say that? Why is it that anyone who wasn't bored of a film that wasn't crammed with tits and explosions is always called a pretentious hipster around here?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:58 No.8838162
    >>8838107
    >thread on confused mathew
    >not ruined from the beginning

    wtfamireading?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:58 No.8838169
    >>8838125
    How did I insult you? I asked you if you were one of those guys who thinks the movie was bad because "not enough stuff happens". The fact that you're getting so defensive about it leads me to believe that you are.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:59 No.8838181
    A lot of the people who don't like the movie seem to be attacking those who do instead of giving compelling reasons why it's a bad film (other than the perennial 'It's BORING').

    On the other hand, some of the people who do like the film tend to attack people who don't like it, without offering solid explanations for why it's a great film.

    However the latter group isn't nearly as common as the former.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)20:59 No.8838185
    >>8838169

    >How did I insult you?

    Well let me see here. . .

    >I asked you if you were one of those guys who thinks the movie was bad because "not enough stuff happens"

    Yep, there we have it.

    Another case resolved
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:00 No.8838188
    >>8838043
    I actually like the movie a lot. That doesn't mean it couldn't move a little faster.

    No movie is perfect, and this is just a minor flaw in an otherwise great movie.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:00 No.8838197
    >>8838185
    >>I asked you if you were one of those guys who thinks the movie was bad because "not enough stuff happens"

    Sounds like terrible insult, are you ok?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:01 No.8838208
    >>8838185
    But based on your criticisms of the movie (it was boring, things should have been cut because they were boring), it really does seem to be the case, so I was just asking to clarify.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:01 No.8838210
    >>8838197


    yeah dude, you almost had me in tears. . .
    >> Darth Vader !!DeUuEkx2HTo 04/30/10(Fri)21:01 No.8838212
    How about you guys watch a good review instead?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:02 No.8838223
         File1272675749.jpg-(20 KB, 479x345, 1264290547333.jpg)
    20 KB
    >my face when I agree with Confused Matthew
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:05 No.8838266
    2deep4u

    you dont have to admit it, you just have to know it.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:05 No.8838268
    I realize I hated Transformers 2 and TWBB for the same reasons.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:06 No.8838282
    >>8838268
    Of course
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:07 No.8838293
    2001 is the only movie I ever slept in on, about 30 mins in and I still hate the review. I'll asume the landscapes represent how barren and shitty the world was before the monolith came and that took me 5 seconds...

    tl;dr: confused mathew is unfunny, annoying and wrong.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:07 No.8838303
    >>8838008
    don't tell me you don't understand the point of the landscapes either
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:10 No.8838341
    ahhahha today has been the best day ever.
    1) create a nolan thread anticipating inception
    2) troll kubrickfags in said thread
    3) after drama dies down, create 2001 thread to troll kubrickfags further
    4) two hours later, still going

    cya, faggots, I'm off to go get massively drunk.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:10 No.8838347
    >>8838268
    Which were?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:11 No.8838365
    2001 is one of the greatest works of art ever made


    op's a fag
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:12 No.8838371
    >>8838341
    Another great day on /tv/
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:12 No.8838374
    >>8838347


    Too much time in the sand.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:13 No.8838394
    >>8838341
    >2) troll kubrickfags in said thread
    No one was trolling the Kubrickfags in that thread. The Nolanfags were just that stupid.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:14 No.8838421
    >>8838374
    Well if that's the only criticism you can think of for Transformers 2, no wonder you don't like good movies.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:15 No.8838423
    Platoon is superior to Full Metal Jacket.

    There I said it.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:15 No.8838432
    >>8838423
    why don't you make a thread about it? this is about 2001
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:15 No.8838434
    >>8838374
    You didn't have a problem with the lack of plot?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:15 No.8838438
    >>8838421

    >Well if that's the only criticism you can think of for Transformers 2

    Have trouble picking up on jokes these days bub?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:16 No.8838458
    >>8838423
    Platoon is kind of simplistic though.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:16 No.8838460
    >>8838423
    I disagree. Platoon is a bit too conveniently dramatic to give a real sense of how the war really was.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:17 No.8838472
    Band of Brothers is superior to everything Kubrick ever made.

    There I said it.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:17 No.8838473
    >>8838434
    What is this obsession with plot? Scorsese's movies have little in the way of plot, and yet many of them are considered masterpieces. The Godfather has little in the way of plot, and yet it is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made. Likewise with 2001.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:18 No.8838485
    >>8838438
    So what films do you actually like?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:18 No.8838491
    LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPES
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:18 No.8838492
    >>8838485


    Deadgirl and assorted pornos
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:19 No.8838493
    >>8838434
    Go watch Fight Club again.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:19 No.8838507
    >>8838485
    The Dark Knight
    Avatar
    District 9
    Boondock Saints
    The Matrix Reloaded
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:19 No.8838511
         File1272676791.jpg-(48 KB, 300x444, Prince_of_Persia_poster.jpg)
    48 KB
    >>8838374
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:20 No.8838520
    >>8838507

    Disregard this fool pretending to be me
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:21 No.8838543
    >>8838473
    Yeah, maybe more that plot is the lack of logic or motive behind the characters actions. I mean, why do they even go to egipt, then to yemen to break a wall, then back to egipt, why do the characters appear for no reason and why there were to gangsta robots around that didn't interact with the rest of the characters?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:21 No.8838547
    >>8838520

    What? Stop pretending to be me, asshole.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:21 No.8838556
    ground control to major tom
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:22 No.8838561
    >>8838543
    I actually thought you were talking about There WIll be Blood. I haven't seen Transformers 2.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:24 No.8838596
    I'm a big fan of Kubrick, but 2001 is boring as watching paint dry. I pretty much agree with most of the video so far.

    2001 is style over substance, prove me wrong fucktards.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:24 No.8838608
    Starship Troopers was a mediocre book.

    A faithful adaption of it would have been 80% Lectures/orders/tactics/procedures and other crap put in extreme detail and the last 20% would be the 2 dimensional character and their power armor.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:24 No.8838615
    >>8838596
    go to bed Mathew
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:26 No.8838646
    >>8838596
    No, the burden of proof lies on you for making such a claim. Inform us, why is it style over substance?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:26 No.8838658
    >>8838561
    You should watch it. It's amazing how much noise and explosions can you cram into a movie to hide the fact that there's no plot behind it. I mean, why do they even start filming a $200M monstrosity without having a simple story to justify what is happening on screen?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:27 No.8838680
    >>8838658
    Because of Daniel Day Lewis.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:28 No.8838685
    >>8838658
    because they know it will make money and they don't care
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:28 No.8838692
    >>8838646
    The complete lack of a plot for the first 25 minutes of the film, the lack of a decent plot for the entire film. I won't deny that it's a nice movie to look at, but it's about as entertaining as a rock.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:29 No.8838704
    Jarhead>Full metal Jacket
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:32 No.8838763
    >>8838680
    He's talking about Transformers, you idiot.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:32 No.8838768
    >>8838596
    >2001 is style over substance

    2001 kinda is style over substance given Kubrick can be a very visual director and 2001 the movie is mostly about the visuals.

    2001 is based on a novel so maybe you should read that but really if you find yourself agreeing with the tastes of a Twilight loving retard like confused matthew I don't think Kubrick movies are suited to your tastes.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:32 No.8838771
    >>8838692
    >A1
    VIEWS OF AFRICAN DRYLANDS - DROUGHT

    The remorseless drought had lasted now for ten million years,
    and would not end for another million. The reign of the ter-
    rible lizards had long since passed, but here on the continent
    which would one day be known as Africa, the battle for survival
    had reached a new climax of ferocity, and the victor was not
    yet in sight. In this dry and barren land, only the small or
    the swift or the fierce could flourish, or even hope to exist.

    10/13/65 a1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A2
    INT & EXT CAVES - MOONWATCHER

    The man-apes of the field had none of these attributes, and
    they were on the long, pathetic road to racial extinction.
    About twenty of them occupied a group of caves overlooking
    a small, parched valley, divided by a sluggish, brown stream.

    The tribe had always been hungry, and now it was starving.
    As the first dim glow of dawn creeps into the cave, Moonwatcher
    discovers that his father has died during the night. He did not know
    the Old One was his father, for such a relationship was beyond
    his understanding. but as he stands looking down at the emac-
    iated body he feels something, something akin to sadness. Then
    he carries his dead father out of the cave, and leaves him for the
    hyenas.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:32 No.8838779
    >>8838347


    never drew me in.

    I just had a really hard time caring about any of the characters or what was happening.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:33 No.8838786
    >>8838692
    >lack of a decent plot

    Oh for fucks sake, go back to Chris Nolan's films if you're so obsessed with plot.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:33 No.8838795
    >>8838771
    Among his kind, Moonwatcher is almost a giant. He is nearly
    five feet high, and though badly undernourished, weighs over
    a hundred pounds. His hairy, muscular body is quite man-like,
    and his head is already nearer man than ape. The forehead is
    low, and there are great ridges over the eye-sockets, yet he
    unmistakably holds in his genes the promise of humanity. As
    he looks out now upon the hostile world, there is already

    10/13/65 a2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A2
    CONTINUED

    something in his gaze beyond the grasp of any ape. In those
    dark, deep-set eyes is a dawning awareness-the first intima-
    tions of an intelligence which would not fulfill itself for another
    two million years.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:34 No.8838807
    A2
    CONTINUED

    something in his gaze beyond the grasp of any ape. In those
    dark, deep-set eyes is a dawning awareness-the first intima-
    tions of an intelligence which would not fulfill itself for another
    two million years.

    10/13/65 a3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A3
    EXT THE STREAM - THE OTHERS

    As the dawn sky brightens, Moonwatcher and his tribe reach
    the shallow stream.

    The Others are already there. They were there on the other
    side every day - that did not make it any less annoying.

    There are eighteen of them, and it is impossible to distinguish
    them from the members of Moonwatcher's own tribe. As
    they see him coming, the Others begin to angrily dance and
    shriek on their side of the stream, and his own people reply
    In kind.

    The confrontation lasts a few minutes - then the display dies
    out as quickly as it has begun, and everyone drinks his fill of
    the muddy water. Honor has been satisfied - each group has
    staked its claim to its own territory.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:34 No.8838812
    >>8838779
    Why do you keep replying to the same posts multiple times?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:35 No.8838824
    >>8838704
    The Hurt Locker > Jarhead
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:35 No.8838829
    A4
    EXT AFRICAN PLAIN - HERBIVORES

    Moonwatcher and his companions search for berries, fruit
    and leaves, and fight off pangs of hunger, while all around
    them, competing with them for the samr fodder, is a potential
    source of more food than they could ever hope to eat. Yet
    all the thousands of tons of meat roaming over the parched
    savanna and through the brush is not only beyond their reach;
    the idea of eating it is beyond their imagination. They are
    slowly starving to death in the midst of plenty.

    10/13/65 a5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A5
    EXT PARCHED COUNTRYSIDE - THE LION

    The tribe slowly wanders across the bare, flat country-
    side foraging for roots and occasional berries.

    Eight of them are irregularly strung out on the open plain,
    about fifty feet apart.

    The ground is flat for miles around.

    Suddenly, Moonwatcher becomes aware of a lion, stalking
    them about 300 yards away.

    Defenceless and with nowhere to hide, they scatter in all
    directions, but the lion brings one to the ground.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:35 No.8838838
    >>8838812


    Various people are pretending to be me.

    It's somewhat flattering really.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:36 No.8838849
    >>8838692
    The whole idea of evolutionary leap and the beginning of the use of tools as weapons to protect and expand the territory, which makes a bone used to smash a rival's skull equivalent to a spaceship is deep man.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:36 No.8838853
    >>8838824


    Agreed.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:37 No.8838872
    >>8838786
    >if you're so obsessed with plot.
    Christ, I really hope you're fucking trolling. "You're obsessed with plot" is really the only thing you have to defend it? Sorry for wanting to watch movies for the story and not the pretty pictures, if I wanted that I'd watch Crank.

    By the way, what movies (other than 2001) are considered good, that don't have strong plots?
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:38 No.8838887
    >>8838872
    Blade Runner
    Taxi Driver
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:39 No.8838897
    >>8838872
    Movies are very much about the visuals if all you want is story read a book.

    This thread is fucking horrible.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:39 No.8838900
    The Dawn of Man sequence is genius
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:39 No.8838916
    >>8838897


    Movies with good plots are too deep for Kubrick fans apparently.

    What an interesting development.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:40 No.8838919
    >>8838887
    I love both those movies, and I'd hardly say they don't have strong plots. At the very least they're much stronger than 2001's.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:40 No.8838926
    >>8838473

    They have characters you can become invested in. Dialogue that's smart. A score that adds atmosphere. 2001 has barely any of that as a majority is watching spaceships float to famous classical pieces.
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:41 No.8838938
    >2001
    >no plot
    wtf am I reading
    >> Anonymous 04/30/10(Fri)21:42 No.8838951
    >>8838938
    >2001
    >Stuff happens in space. Also, monkeys.



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous