Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
#1
To overuse an already overused meme: "Great film? Or The Greatest Film?"  Happy 50th to my single favorite sci-fi film of all time.  In a sea of great work, Kubrick and Clarke nailed this in every way.  A film that changed and boosted realism in optical effects, that features shots almost indistinguishable from actual NASA-recorded footage, that challenges narrative and visual storytelling, that remains enigmatic and elegant decade after decade.

I've seen it on the big screen a few times, once even in 70mm at Boston's historic legit theater venue, the Wang Center (one of the only venues beautiful enough to really do it justice).  I've had various editions, including the music, on every format aside from 4K and actual film.  After a dozen books, dozens of reviews and articles, there's still so much to love about 2001.  I'd even love to see a 3D conversion of it someday, just to see how it would work with something with such elegant long takes.  (As long as Steven Spielberg or David Lynch personally supervised the work, in Kubrick's absence.)

And it's back in theaters in may for its 50th Anniversary!





Let's grab a drink at the Space Hilton and spread some love for H.A.L, Dave, Frank and Heywood.  And especially Arthur and Stan.
Reply
#2
Greatest film.

I appreciate the heads-up about the anniversary coming up.  I'll be watching my local Cinemark theater like a hawk for dates and times.

ETA:  The National Air and Space Museum is celebrating the anniversary with an art installation that replicates the white hotel room from the end of the film.
"Looking at the Trump administration, I'm starting to think I was too hard on the characters in Prometheus."  --  MrBananaGrabber
Reply
#3
Playing in 1968 in one of Boston's old now-defunct Cinerama theaters...

   

   
Reply
#4
The first time I watched it was on VHS in the mid 90s and I didn't get it at all. Then I saw it on the big screen about 15 years ago and it's still one of the most memorable cinema experiences of my life. It probably helped that second time out I knew better what to expect from the "story", but seeing it BIG was BIG part of making it click too.

I've only seen it BIG one other time though, and that was around a decade ago I guess, so my body is ready AF.
Reply
#5
Just read this... "Interesting trivia... per their deal with Stanley Kubrick, MGM’s distribution territory for the film included “any and all space vehicles, stations, planets, planetoids, and moons, in all the galaxies of the Universe.”
Reply
#6
I don't get the sense that this is going to be a very wide re-release. Sounds like Christopher Nolan will be traveling around with a 70mm print. I am not holding my breath that I will get to see this.
Reply
#7
Some very interesting discussion going on about the merits of Nolan's analog-only re-release of 2001. The comments by famed film historian Robert Harris are particularly intriguing.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/communi...48/page-36
Reply
#8
that's fun!
Reply
#9
I’ve been very concerned about this ever since Nolan’s involvement started getting highlighted. He is not a professional in this field, and the transfers for his own films vary wildly in quality. I can sort of understand WB wanting to throw his name on this to perhaps get more eyes, but I can’t imagine many people who weren’t already interested in seeing the film being roped in by Nolan’s name on a poster.

Hopefully the UHD release is quality, even if Nolan’s drive for an “unrestored” print harms the new 70mm prints.
Reply
#10
What frustrates me is I'm unlikely* to be anywhere within the state line of a 70mm showing, and apparently the studio is foregoing a digital release this year to make this limited analog run more special. In other words, if you don't live in NY, LA or a few other select cities, go fuck yourself for wanting to see 2001 on the big screen for its 50th anniversary. We could have had a much wider DCP release to supplement this special event, but I guess it's more important to satisfy Nolan's dubious agenda than for audiences to actually see the movie.

I would for sure watch a 70mm print if I had the option, but I think Kubrick would have been bemused by some of Nolan's thinking here. The "analog in, analog out" philosophy is cool, but the reality is that the result is going to be less accurate to Kubrick's intentions than what a digital restoration effort would be able to achieve based on the condition of the ever-deteriorating source elements.

*Not that Warner has gone to the trouble of putting out a reliable theater list
Reply
#11
Are you near a sizable college? I've heard some of them are hip to the 70mm thing. Give 'em a call. You never know!
Reply
#12
I have it on pretty good authority that there isn't even a working 70mm projector in my state. We got The Hateful Eight and later Dunkirk as part of that big push where projectors were lent out to ~100 locations. But apparently it's been returned.

This is the only site that has any kind of theater list for 2001 in 70mm. But it's not the definitive list from Warner Bros. I'm looking for.

http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
Reply
#13
I didn't get the film at first and found it boring, but after a few more viewings, I grew to appreciate it and now consider it one of my favorites. A truly epic film with striking imagery, masterful use of music, a compelling villain in HAL and ambiguity that leaves it open to different interpretations.

What did everyone think of the sequel, 2010? It obviously isn't the epic film the first was, but I thought it had its moments.
Reply
#14
2010 is a quality science fiction film. To be sure, Hymans was playing checkers while Kubrick was playing chess, but when you're not comparing it to transcendent masterpieces it holds its own.
Reply
#15
(05-17-2018, 12:57 PM)fatherdude Wrote: This is the only site that has any kind of theater list for 2001 in 70mm.  But it's not the definitive list from Warner Bros. I'm looking for.
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm

Plus, it's inaccurate.  2001 is playing in 70mm in two different theaters in my town very soon and neither venue is listed on there.
Reply
#16
Yup. It's annoying, because you know there's only a few 70mm prints of this. Surely Warner can put together a list of where the hell they're being sent.
Reply
#17
(05-17-2018, 01:57 PM)fatherdude Wrote: 2010 is a quality science fiction film.  To be sure, Hymans was playing checkers while Kubrick was playing chess, but when you're not comparing it to transcendent masterpieces it holds its own.

Agreed. It's main drawback is that it's a sequel to a movie like 2001. On its own merits, it's a smart, engaging movie with good performances and gorgeous effects. Thematically it even ties in neatly with 2001, like it ending with a beginning. It may not transcend character and story the way Kubrick's film does, but it nails those elements nonetheless.
Originally posted by Schwartz on Cool as Ice ("When a girl has a heart of stone, there's only one way to melt it. Just add Ice."):
"It's not just a mixed metaphor, or that the stone is one that is melting...but the ice is actually making it melt. (kisses fingers) Magnifique."
Reply
#18
Video 
I just revisited 2010 recently and yeah I still really like it.  It's not as high-level as 2001, of course, but it's very enjoyable and effective "normal movie" stuff.
I keep waiting for 2069: ODYSSEY THREE and especially 3001: THE FINAL ODYSSEY to get made.  Both Tom Hanks and Ridley Scott have had the rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3001:_The_...daptations

In the meantime, EUROPA REPORT makes a decent little side-quel...



Reply
#19
Seeing the new 70mm print in 10 minutes. I’ve never seen a 70mm print before. I’m psyched.
Reply
#20
2010 has the disadvantage of answering the questions rather than asking them.  So that sense of mystery and wonder isn't as great.  But the slingshot sequence on the Leonov is great, and I like where they taker HAL in the end.  Plus the entire cast is bringing it.  Like was said, it's a really good science fiction film that has the unfortunate task of following up an all-time classic science fiction film.

And I'm gonna have to full-on storm the Bastille if that 70mm presentation doesn't come anywhere near Orlando.  Nothing on Fandango or the chain sites yet...
My karmic debt must be huge.

----------

My blog: An Embarrassment of Rich's
Reply
#21
2010 also has Helen Mirren as the Russian captain. "You have been drinking your whiskey from Kentucky...?"
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#22
So I'm back from the screening. All the comments being made in the Home Theater Forum are accurate: this is not a pristine print. But it didn't bother me at all. I admire Nolan's gambit more after reading through all the gripping. This imperfect version would never have been distributed were he not to put his name to it. The film is going to live through ultra clean 4K (and beyond) streaming and discs, so this 50th Anniversary version is, in fact, a more special and unique experience. Plus, it's probably more accurate to what all the filmmakers, critics, and artists saw in 1968 as the same prints were screened throughout the year. I'm very grateful I got to see it.

But I don't want to give the impression that it looks bad. It doesn't. It just has specks and scratches on it. Otherwise there are moments when Kubrick's use of color is stunning. The slit-scan sequence looks fantastic. And, at least at my screening, the score and sound effects were LOUD. The sounds of Bowman's knife and fork during the space hotel sequence struck me in particular, and they're proof of Kubrick's unrivaled attention to detail.
Reply
#23
Damn, I've got too many options this Friday. 2001 in 70 at the Castro, or Rear Window and To Catch a Thief in 35 at the Stanford? And meanwhile the Roxie is cheekily counter-programming with Valley Girl in 35.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#24
(05-23-2018, 06:20 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Damn, I've got too many options this Friday. 2001 in 70 at the Castro, or Rear Window and To Catch a Thief in 35 at the Stanford? And meanwhile the Roxie is cheekily counter-programming with Valley Girl in 35.

[Image: tenor.gif]
Reply
#25
Have I mentioned lately that I love living in the San Francisco Bay Area?
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#26
(05-23-2018, 05:51 PM)Giorgio Wrote: But I don't want to give the impression that it looks bad. It doesn't. It just has specks and scratches on it. Otherwise there are moments when Kubrick's use of color is stunning. The slit-scan sequence looks fantastic. And, at least at my screening, the score and sound effects were LOUD. The sounds of Bowman's knife and fork during the space hotel sequence struck me in particular, and they're proof of Kubrick's unrivaled attention to detail.

I saw Vertigo last year in 70mm. Kind of a similar experience. It definitely wasn't entirely cleaned up, with noticeable distortions in parts, but when it was "clean", it was like seeing a new movie. The clarity of the picture in some parts was quit remarkable. Been debating about checking out 2001, I just haven't had any time and it will probably be out of the theater by them time my schedule frees up.
Reply
#27
The 70mm Vertigo prints represent a heavy, and some say subjective, restoration. That film wasn't originally shot or released in 70, but the format was chosen by the restorers since the originating format, VistaVision, is basically obsolete. I have to say I'm curious to see a direct-contact print of 2001 if that's what Nolan's presentation really is.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#28
(05-23-2018, 11:06 AM)Richard Dickson Wrote: And I'm gonna have to full-on storm the Bastille if that 70mm presentation doesn't come anywhere near Orlando.  Nothing on Fandango or the chain sites yet...

Actually, the movie has an official website, and this page lists where the nearest screening is to where you live. Hopefully that helps out everyone as the in70mm website only lists some of the showings. For people like me or Richard Dickson, we have to go to the Miami area (the Coral Gables Art Cinema, to be exact) in early July to check it out. For me I don't know if I'll be able to pull that off as I would have to be gone the entire day. I personally can't get too mad if I don't see it as a few years ago, in the area I got to see the film theatrically. That was incredible even if it was a digital screening.
"If they made CITIZEN KANE now, it would star Danny McBride and Rosebud would be the title of his favorite spank magazine when he was a teenager. "-- engineer, talking about modern movie making

My Letterboxd Page
Reply
#29
So, caught the new 70mm print at the Castro. A couple of baked-in tears and splices, but otherwise very clean and clear. Two things that jumped out for me:

1. The color in the Dawn of Man sequence looks better then I recall seeing ever before. I feel that there's always been a greenish tint bleeding through the front-projection backgrounds in previous releases. I did notice the texture of the front-projection screen in a couple of shots, which I recall is something that irked Steven Soderbergh about the Blu-ray.

2. There are wooden crates on the Moon Bus.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#30
So far there's no engagement closer than 400 miles from me, but it's nice that there's a reliable way to search now. I pretty much have to hope that the rumors of a supplementary DCP release are true, but I've also heard the rumor that Warner Bros. is deliberately withholding a digital release to make this analog run more special.
Reply
#31
4K release on October 30.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=23536
“That which doesn't kill you wasn't done right.”—Khaya Dlanga
Reply
#32
Got my ticket for the weekend 70mm show! And Keir Dullea will be there!
Reply
#33
I saw this on the big screen last weekend. The doofus sitting next to me -- no joke -- would chuckle to himself each time the movie cut to another shot. It's as if the notion of practical makeup, optical effects and 1960s hairstyles, not to mention wide shots, medium shots, close-ups, reverse shots, and over-the-shoulders were a source of endless hilarity. I wanted to pull my own head off and drop kick it. But I ultimately just moved. I hate people.
Reply
#34
Love this film. As I was a space nut by this time of its release and I dragged my dad to its during a 1969 70mm run (single-projector) on our city's only curved Cinerama cinema. Wow! My dad, however, who was much more into musicals like Oklahoma! and The Glen Miller story (he had the soundtracks on LP) still managed to exclaim to me as we were leaving: "that was weird movie, but I kind of liked it !" Since then, I have watched 2001 on too many occasions to count; and at least four times in a scratchy 70mm print during the 1980s-90s. Before I got married, I screened my Laserdisc version with my future wife and she was enthralled by the visuals. It has become a favourite of hers as well.
Reply
#35
(06-21-2018, 06:15 PM)michael shaver Wrote: 4K release on October 30.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=23536

This is the first time I've been sorely tempted to get a 4K tv and player.
"I mean don't get me wrong fucking the wolf man is impressive but ugh." - Waaaaaaaalt
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)