The most important feature of this film is the procrastination-of course, some people like this procrastination, this is understandable. But at least I hate it. I don't want to say more about the details of art. After all, there is no uniform standard. Such discussions will not have any positive effects except for the end of a war of words. But after watching this film, my feeling was that I was fooled. However, after watching so many film reviews, what surprised me was how so much irresponsible nonsense is possible in this world. ·Excessive rendering of technical details. This film is a science fiction, and the technical details that are too emphasized are very boring-because many emphasized technical details are very unreliable, I don't want to mention them all, any physics undergraduate Can list a lot of them. I don't dislike the scientific element of science fiction, but you can't put it in the main part to render it. Basically, almost no science fiction can be completely reliable (actually I want to say no, but since I can't guarantee that I have seen all science fiction, I add the attributive "almost almost). In this case, advertise the so-called " "Hard" science fiction is purely diseased. In my understanding, the real hard science fiction should be technical elements that are really hard, and it is even difficult to find any unreasonable flaws, but in the narrative process, this characteristic is taken away and not carried out. Too much advertised, this is a very poor job. A story with a relatively simple main line, just showing off special effects will cost a lot of time, Kubrick should just go to develop video games. ·The so-called profound I have never understood the subject, why many people make things that they don’t understand so sacred. The second half of this film is very experimental. After watching it, many people don’t understand what was said, so it seems like a chimpanzee. As we saw the black slate, “don’t understand” turned into awe and blind worship—“profound themes”, “heavyness”, “allegory and enlightenment” appeared in a large number of comments. People seemed willing to guess “don’t understand” The "profound themes" behind ", every time I think of one that seems to be a little reliable and reasonable, or see a comment that "has a deep feeling in my heart", I immediately generate a strong identity, thinking that I have grasped the truth and The way the film is interpreted, everyone knows that the name of most experimental films is "experiment", because it contains immature meaning-no matter what theme the director wants to discuss, he can't get out of this circle. Some things rely on a little bit of video. It’s impossible to express at all—that’s why Clark said: If you fully understand, we failed. ·Comments on nonsense The film was completed in 1968. Not only did Kubrick procrastinate in the play, but the process of filming was also procrastinated, causing the producers to get angry, asking whether "2001" was the background of the film or the release time? So remember, it’s not your fault but the director’s fault to feel impatient while watching this film-please ignore the shallow comments that accuse you! When someone talks about movies, they always call Nietzsche's Neoclassical Renaissance and so on. I don't understand those things, so I dare not say that they are wrong, and I can't tell if they are fooling me. But for the commentary on this film, I saw a lot of words "according to the theory of relativity", "according to the parallel universe", and "according to the physical theory of XX". There is nothing more ridiculous than this. Therefore, no matter how mysterious the movie review you see, it quotes how many celebrities you know or don’t know, as long as you see it talks about "according to the theory of relativity", "according to the parallel universe", and "according to what?" In other words, I can assure you responsibly that the person who wrote this film review is talking nonsense-I didn't see the "profound theme" of the film, and I still know some things like relativity. All in all, this film is an experimental film under the name of fake science fiction.
—————— The dividing line after 12 years——————
This film review was written in 2008, when he was still in college. In view of the fact that comments continue to be pushed in after 12 years, I write a short supplement here.
In the twelve years, I have watched 2001 Space Odyssey many times, and I have also met many people who have praised the film. A screenwriter friend of mine told me that it is said that if a film and television practitioner is pretending to be forceful, he will ask him if he likes 2001. After so many years, my feeling is that 99% of people who say this film is good because others think it is good (for example, many of Liu Cixin’s fans are because Liu thinks this film is good), but few people really like it. few.
Twelve years ago, he was a person who liked to go to diss when he saw others pretending to be x. Because after all, while studying cosmology, listening to others tell you how terrifying the universe is from the movie, I can’t help but shoot it back. It is better to talk about Kant as a philosophical thinking about the universe, or to talk about Einstein as far as physics thinking is, and as far as movies are concerned, it is after all an art form for humans to describe the universe. Art is the objectified projection of emotions, and it has only one function, and that is emotional awakening-no matter where the emotion comes from. This definition conforms to all works of art, and this is the supremacy of all art, including movies. Therefore, any art has an audience. For a certain work of art or a certain type of work of art, you can be awakened directly, or you can become a awakened object through training. The latter is the so-called aesthetic education. Under this definition, in recent years, the tolerance for movies or other works of art has become higher, and they can better understand the feelings of the specific audience of each movie. So someone will ask me why I would give a high score to "Predecessor 3". The answer is simple-although I am not the audience of this film, after more than ten years of training, I understand those who watch "Predecessor 3" People crying in the theater.
What about 2001? Is it really only 2 points? In fact, 200 points are not enough for moviegoers who are truly awakened by the art of 2001. However, based on repeated discussions and observations with various practitioners and sci-fi enthusiasts over the years, it is definitely a very small number of people who can be emotionally awakened by 2001. Most of them were not awakened by the emotion of this film. Those who have not been emotionally awakened but insist that they are awakened constitute the vast majority of the movie’s strange and pretending film reviews. This is what I don’t like. I still dislike it more than ten years ago, and of course it’s not 12 years ago. It's so fierce-because getting satisfaction from acting is also a kind of emotional projection or artistic behavior.
However, 2001 itself has formed a cultural phenomenon in which people, whether they like it or not, are evaluating people by talking about it. This is very interesting. For example, many people in the comments will say, how old are you, how many books have you seen, how many movies have you watched, and so on. I think that compared to thinking about the universe and life, this is the most interesting artistic value of this movie.
View more about 2001: A Space Odyssey reviews
