• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WTF?!?!?!

yhelothar

yhelothar

Lifer
This movie has to be more weird than requiem for a dream.
WAAAY more weird. Probably because it was so incoherent.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
 
Yeah that's it..
What's up with all the blank screens for 5 minutes?
One in the beginning, and one after it says "intermission"
WTF why is there an intermission in a movie? did they not have the pause button back in 68????
 

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Yeah that's it..
What's up with all the blank screens for 5 minutes?
One in the beginning, and one after it says "intermission"
WTF why is there an intermission in a movie? did they not have the pause button back in 68????
Click to expand...



Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
yes, they used to have intermissions in the middle of longer movies to allow for restroom breaks and trips to the snack bar
Click to expand...


Uh they did not have vcr,dvd in 1968/69.

Noob.
 
Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.
Click to expand...

I've watched it about 3 times and I still don't get it and I don't care to, either. The movie is rather boring. The part with HAL was interesting, but the rest was just waaaaaay too slow.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
i saw it as a kid and it was interesting, whereas 2010 is the most boring movie ever made.
Click to expand...

2001 was interesting, but theyre both really slow paced, i liked 2001 a bit more. i wouldnt watch either of them again unless i was paid to do it; i fell asleep during both.
 
Originally posted by: xSauronx
Originally posted by: Skoorb
i saw it as a kid and it was interesting, whereas 2010 is the most boring movie ever made.
Click to expand...

2001 was interesting, but theyre both really slow paced, i liked 2001 a bit more. i wouldnt watch either of them again unless i was paid to do it; i fell asleep during both.
Click to expand...

same here.
 
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
This movie has to be more weird than requiem for a dream.
WAAAY more weird. Probably because it was so incoherent.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

That's Kubrick for you. His movies are good but I find them to be a bit scatterbrained.
 
Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Yeah that's it..
What's up with all the blank screens for 5 minutes?
One in the beginning, and one after it says "intermission"
WTF why is there an intermission in a movie? did they not have the pause button back in 68????
Click to expand...



Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
yes, they used to have intermissions in the middle of longer movies to allow for restroom breaks and trips to the snack bar
Click to expand...


Uh they did not have vcr,dvd in 1968/69.

Noob.
Click to expand...

uh MORON ALERT

they had Movie Thearters then, hence the tern SNACK BAR


o and read the books, much better then tha acid trip of a movie
 
I liked the 2001 and 2010. In Aug. 2001 I meet the actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood and had them sign my copy of the movie and a large photo of them in the pod talking about HAL.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
This movie has to be more weird than requiem for a dream.
WAAAY more weird. Probably because it was so incoherent.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

That's Kubrick for you. His movies are good but I find them to be a bit scatterbrained.
Click to expand...

Full Metal Jacket wasn't too scatterbrained.
But it's the funniest movie, and the saddest movie all in one :Q
 
Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.
Click to expand...

No, it means you're a super nerd w/ knowledge of some useless crap.
 
Originally posted by: whitecloak
Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

:thumbsdown:

If you didn't read the books, you won't get the movie. That's bad movie making, plain and simple. Yes, it was really well done. No, it is NOT a good movie.
 
The movie was created as a demo to show the advancement in film effect that Kubrick's production company had achieved (which at the time was unbelievable and now is an antique). I enjoyed the movie though, had to fast forward through the boring parts though including the intermission.
 
Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
Read A.C. Clarke's novel...better than movie, though it's amongst my fav. films...that and Bubba Hotep :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Also get Clarke's Lost Worlds of 2001.

contains the actual making of the movie and the book.
 
ive seen both movies and read all 4 books (2001, 2010, 2063, 3001). the second movie is crap (though roy scheider is cool...JAWS!). you have to go into 2001 expecting an "art film" not enternainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top