Started By
Message
locked post

2001 and A Clockwork Orange

Posted on 7/12/10 at 8:35 am
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150767 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 8:35 am
Finally watched both of these in the last week or two. Spoilers below, obviously.

2001: A Space Oddessey

I actually really liked this one. It was slow and fairly boring at times, but I expected that going in, so it really didn't bother me all that much. Also, there was a thread on here about a month ago that someone had posted a link in, and it was a link to a little series of flash videos that seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining 2001. So having watched that BEFORE watching the movie, I was watching along with a little more insight as to what everything meant in the movie.

Overall, I really liked it, as I said. I'd give it about a 7.5/8 our of ten. I thought for the most part, it was a gorgeous movie, and I can definitely see why it is so highly touted at times as a forerunner for special effects in its time. Obviously, the music was pretty fitting as well, and I enjoyed that. On the flip side, I thought that using silence for lots of parts of the film was a great call by Kubrick. Like using the breathing during the space walk scenes..made it feel a bit more intense and real. Also, I thought the whole Space Act was awesome...the suspense with HAL and the two astronauts was great.

Also, the only parts I FFWD'd through were the 3-minute musical black screen at the beginning, and a little near the end when the astronaut goes through the space/time warp thing. I'd be interested to see how I would have rated it if I had seen it in the time when it was originally released though.

A Clockwork Orange

I had previously "seen" this movie before, but only bits and pieces...I had never sat down and watched it in its entirety. It was actually not as good as I was expecting it to be. I realize it's an old movie, and that it was pretty controversial for its time (and likely still is to this day), but I just found it off at times. However, I think that a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was more "British" in nature, so there is admittedly somewhat of a little disconnect there with me.

I love the overall arc of the story though..how Alex transforms from criminal leader to prisoner to victim and then somewhat back to "normal" (his original "normal") in the end. Some of the beating/rape scenes don't hold up for me though. One example that comes to mind is when he is kidnapped and beaten by his fellow droogs-turned-cops. The billy club in Georgie's (I think) was clearly fake, and he didn't sell me on the actual beating. I know that's a fairly miniscule thing, but it bugged me.

Overall, I thought it was a solid movie...I guess I just had higher hopes for it. I'd give it about a 7 out of 10 though, as I still enjoyed it and liked the story. I felt like it could have been about 30 minutes shorter though (some of the scenes just dragged on, but I guess that's Kubrick though), and that would have helped it IMO.


All in all, I thought 2001 was better than I was expecting, and ACO was worse, but both were very solid movies that I'd recommend to anybody who hasn't seen them.

What are ya'lls thoughts on these two classics..?
Posted by LSUSaintsFan86
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2009
2294 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 8:58 am to
I know exactly how you feel when it comes to clockwork. All the British crap was a little too much at times. I regularly found myself wondering wtf the guy just said. Still a good flick IMO.
Posted by Hot Carl
Prayers up for 3
Member since Dec 2005
59154 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:01 am to
quote:

What are ya'lls thoughts on these two classics..?


Too early to really get into this, but the amazing thing to me, is that they both came out around 40 years ago. Kubrick was no doubt a visionary.


Oh, and I like both of these, but 2001 is clearly the superior film. It would be in my top 10.
Posted by constant cough
Lafayette
Member since Jun 2007
44788 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:02 am to
quote:

What are ya'lls thoughts on these two classics..?



Kinda similar to your own. I think 2001 is a great movie and A Clockwork Orange one of Kubrick's most overrated along with The Shinning.
Posted by LSUSaintsFan86
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2009
2294 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:04 am to
You think The Shining is over rated as a film? Or over rated as one of Kubricks best. Because IMO it is def. one of if not his best work.
Posted by constant cough
Lafayette
Member since Jun 2007
44788 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:06 am to
quote:

You think The Shining is over rated as a film? Or over rated as one of Kubricks best.



Overrated as a film and as one of Kubrick's best. Take for instance Barry Lyndon, the movie he did in between A Clockwork Orange & The Shining it's vastly superior to both of those.
This post was edited on 7/12/10 at 9:08 am
Posted by LSUSaintsFan86
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2009
2294 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:08 am to
Well I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with you. I guess it is because when I saw it I was really young and it scared the shite out of me. It always stuck with me for some reason.
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150767 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:13 am to
quote:

regularly found myself wondering wtf the guy just said

Yeah, I had to rewind it several times to try to catch what was being said.

Also, ACO just came off as creepy at times...not sure if Kubrick did that intentionally or not. But for example, the scene where Alex's PO guy (P.R. Deltoid) visits him in his home, and Alex is sitting there with him on the bed in his underwear, and the dude talks to him and then punches/grabs his crotch. Just weird shite.
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150767 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:14 am to
Yeah, I think The Shining is great.
Posted by constant cough
Lafayette
Member since Jun 2007
44788 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:14 am to
I know what you mean. Nostalgia factor plays a big influence in movies from my youth. I tend to have a strong bias for movies that made a big first impression on me.
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37295 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:14 am to
quote:

Barry Lyndon


I think this is Kubrick's best film
Posted by LSUSaintsFan86
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2009
2294 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:18 am to
I must admit Ive never seen Barry Lyndon. I need to Netflix it. But as far as ACO being creepy I totally agree, but I think Kubrick was going for the same vibe as the book.
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37295 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:22 am to
quote:

Also, there was a thread on here about a month ago that someone had posted a link in, and it was a link to a little series of flash videos that seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining 2001. So having watched that BEFORE watching the movie, I was watching along with a little more insight as to what everything meant in the movie.


Interesting way to do it, surprised it didn't ruin it or make it too easy to decipher.

quote:

Overall, I really liked it, as I said. I'd give it about a 7.5/8 our of ten.


Probably a fair assessment overall. You're right, seeing it when it was released was most likely a much larger deal. It was way ahead of its time.


quote:

Overall, I thought it was a solid movie...I guess I just had higher hopes for it. I'd give it about a 7 out of 10 though, as I still enjoyed it and liked the story. I felt like it could have been about 30 minutes shorter though (some of the scenes just dragged on, but I guess that's Kubrick though), and that would have helped it IMO.


Yeah Kubrick tends to do that sometimes. I would think that ACO is usually the more easily liked film.

Posted by Superior Pariah
Member since Jun 2009
8457 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:27 am to
quote:

It was slow and fairly boring at times, but I expected that going in, so it really didn't bother me all that much.


I never found this movie boring at all even during scenes like the space warp scene. 2001 was the first to show me that minimalist art films truly are unique and that you don't need common essentials like dialogue or a steady pace to make something compelling. You just have to let yourself get sucked in. I could write a huge essay on how important this movie is to my love of films.

P.S. This is one of the best movies to watch while high if you are into that sort of thing.


And as others have said, ACO is probably one of Kubrick's most overrated but not bad by any means. I don't think he has made a single bad film that I've seen of his.
Posted by indianswim
Plano, TX
Member since Jan 2010
18800 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:39 am to
As far as having to RW to understand what Alex is saying in ACO, that's typical. But Kubrick kept it true to the book in that aspect. That's one of the best parts of the movie. After awhile, if you watch it enough times, you actually understand every bit of what he's saying.

As far as the beatings being fake, the movie was already provocative enough. I can live with what it is.

2001 is an awesome movie, too. I just prefer ACO.

Viddy well little brothas. Viddy well.
Posted by Geauxldineye
New Orleans, La
Member since Sep 2005
1345 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 9:55 am to
2001 Is, if not my favorite movie of all time, it's definitely in the top 3-5. The movie effects still stand up some 40 years later. This is probably the seminal film for science fiction in motion pictures. I can watch this film endlessly and always marvel at Kubrick's brilliance as a filmmaker, as well as Arthur C. Clark for the shear scope and awe that this story encompasses.
Posted by CTexTiger
Austin, TX
Member since Jul 2008
4987 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 10:01 am to
I love both of these films. ACO is in my top five. 2001 would be in my top twenty. I understand the reasons for some of the negative feelings towards both films, but they benefit from further viewings if you're willing to give them a try. I think most will be better able to grasp ACO after a subsequent viewing, 2001... maybe not. Visually they are both stunning, which is obvious from the first viewing, but there is so much going on in a Kubrick film that you really have to view them more than once to fully appreciate their genious. These movies are more of an "experience" than anything else. They will never be movies the casual movie fan loves, but for those willing to further dissect them, they can be rewarding.
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150767 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Interesting way to do it, surprised it didn't ruin it or make it too easy to decipher.

Yeah, part of me was worried about that, but I found that in a movie like 2001, where there can be so much interpretation, it actually did help. After watching it, I think I would have come to a conclusion similar to that flash video that explained it, but still, having seen that definitely didn't take anything away from me upon viewing it. I still enjoyed it a lot and thought it was great. Even the two parts I FFWD'd through weren't necessarily "boring" to me, more than I just didn't need to stare at a blank screen listening to faint music for three minutes or watch a kaleidoscope on-screen for several minutes.
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
59106 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 10:30 am to
quote:

Kubrick's best film


Paths of Glory
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150767 posts
Posted on 7/12/10 at 10:41 am to
quote:

The movie effects still stand up some 40 years later. This is probably the seminal film for science fiction in motion pictures.

Agreed. I was amazed watching it now, in 2010, at how great the SFX were in a movie that is 42 years old. Also, I was reading about it, and it's awesome how much Kubrick and his team stayed true to actual science and realism in that regard.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram