Confused matthew does 2001 a space odyssey

[Kegg]

On the agonybooth.com forum someone leaked the transcript of his upcoming No Country For Old Men review,

Er, quite. It amounted to him yelling "NOTHING HAPPENS!" over and over, more or less, and I wish I was exaggerating greatly.

That's one of my main problems with Matthew - even ignoring the honestly rather poor arguments that have cropped up in his videos, he really has no idea how to make anger entertaining, or have a good grasp of flow and direction in writing his reviews.

They can get bogged down in explaining the plot to an unnecessary extent - The Incredibles reviews, say - or get completely caught up in a whiny, aggressive, intensely repetitive rage that is ultimately impossible to listen to. I'm really not sure how yelling 'THAT'S. JUST. RETARDED!' is supposed to be bearable, let alone constitute entertainment (an ideal all video reviews should strive for, no?)

Two offenders of his irritating rage of that would be Revenge of the Sith or Generations, either of which conclude with sequences that are every bit as entertaining as listening to a spoiled brat wailing at the top of his lungs in a supermarket.

So I'l admit I passed on listening to this review, but I enjoy discussing 2001 all the same.

 

[Ryan]

Just because his ADHD was kicking in didn't mean there's "nothing happening". I always took those landscape shots to show the total domination nature had over proto-man. The barrenness and hostility of the environment was meant to mirror that of deep space in the second act.

There are definitely problems with 2001 (the third act could have used some brevity) but "nothing happens" isn't one of them. A lot happens, it's just shown rather than said.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I managed to get a few minutes into the review before I had to turn it off. All I can say is that Confused Matthew is dead to me.

 

[stonester1]

That I don't understand, why can't attention spans be flexible? As I've gotten older, I more thoroughly understand and enjoy a film like 2001 and have an easier time sitting through it, lost in the wonder. I ALSO enjoy a fast paced film like Star Trek.

So I don't understand this "attention spans gotten shorter" thing. I mean, I see it's effects, but I don't relate to it, as I haven't experienced it. If anything, I've gone the opposite way.

 

[Broccoli]

I've never seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or seen any of Confused Mathews reviews, so I have no stake in this. But I simply cannot get over the arrogance and elitism of the so called defenders of this movie.

"You don't like this movie? That's because you're too stupid to get it"
"Oh, the reason you don't like this movie is because you're too young and stupid. You grew up on MTV and have ADD. I pity you"

It's a movie people. Just because someone doesn't like the same films as you doesn't mean they're stupid or have ADD. What is it about these hard SF films that get such fierce devotion from fans?

Whoa...back up, pal. No one here has said anything of the sort and no elitism has been displayed in the slightest.

Yes, this thread is skewed toward defending the film. But those defenses are geared towards the increasingly bizarre rants of "Confused Matthew" over 2001.

Based on his "review", it is clear that he did not do any research on the film, which would explain why things were done the way they were done. He might not agree with those reasons, but the fact that he clearly comes off as a "know-it-all" who knows nothing is the point of ire that is being created.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Whoa...back up, pal. No one here has said anything of the sort and no elitism has been displayed in the slightest.

Yes, this thread is skewed toward defending the film. But those defenses are geared towards the increasingly bizarre rants of "Confused Matthew" over 2001.

Based on his "review", it is clear that he did not do any research on the film, which would explain why things were done the way they were done. He might not agree with those reasons, but the fact that he clearly comes off as a "know-it-all" who knows nothing is the point of ire that is being created.

You're saying because he holds a different opinion than you that his opinions are factually wrong (or bizarre?) due to no research... Because suddenly research needs to be done to enjoy a film, it can't be good on its own merits..

What a world. Interesting.

 

[Broccoli]

Whoa...back up, pal. No one here has said anything of the sort and no elitism has been displayed in the slightest.

Yes, this thread is skewed toward defending the film. But those defenses are geared towards the increasingly bizarre rants of "Confused Matthew" over 2001.

Based on his "review", it is clear that he did not do any research on the film, which would explain why things were done the way they were done. He might not agree with those reasons, but the fact that he clearly comes off as a "know-it-all" who knows nothing is the point of ire that is being created.

You're saying because he holds a different opinion than you that his opinions are factually wrong (or bizarre?) due to no research... Because suddenly research needs to be done to enjoy a film, it can't be good on its own merits..

What a world. Interesting.

Where did I say he had a different opinion than me, and that's what made him "wrong"? Please don't put words into my mouth.

In any event, no, that is not what I am saying. I am sorry that if that was the impression I gave. Allow me to, hopefully, better explain.

He is free to criticize a film, but how he is going about criticizing it make little sense as he brings about conflicting arguments. For example, he makes the claim that Kubrick is a great director. I think he even makes the claim that he is one of the best (I can't recall his exact words). He then goes on about how bad the writing is (with "nothing happening") when the issue isn't about the writing, but rather the direction. Speaking of the writing, he makes the glaring omission of mentioning Arthur C. Clark, which gives off an impression that he specifically wants to target "Kubrickans" (which I assume means Kubrick fanboys - something I never knew existed).

Also, he makes the claim that a movie doesn't begin until the plot begins. That can be a fair claim, however, he goes on to say that the plot doesn't start until Floyd arrives on the space station. That is a dubious claim at best, especially since it can be easily argued that the plot begins with the monkeys learning to use tools for the first time.

As for the research...with a film like 2001 and considering on how different it is from most mainstream films of the time and today, poking around into the intentions of the film would be useful when doing a review where you plan to discuss it opposite of how it is generally viewed.

The thing here is that he is looking at the film as he would a mainstream movie. 2001 is not a mainstream movie by any means. Others might disagree with me on this, but 2001 is more an "art film" than anything else. As such, it should be viewed in that regard. For a point of comparison, it would be like looking at Die Hard the same way you would look at Dances with Wolves. You can't compare the two because they are such radically different films. Instead, it would be more appropriate to judge a particular film in context to the genre/style that it falls into. Kinda like how the Onion's AV Club does when it looks at a film.

 

[Pilot Ace]

He is free to criticize a film, but how he is going about criticizing it make little sense as he brings about conflicting arguments. For example, he makes the claim that Kubrick is a great director. I think he even makes the claim that he is one of the best (I can't recall his exact words). He then goes on about how bad the writing is (with "nothing happening") when the issue isn't about the writing, but rather the direction. Speaking of the writing, he makes the glaring omission of mentioning Arthur C. Clark, which gives off an impression that he specifically wants to target "Kubrickans" (which I assume means Kubrick fanboys - something I never knew existed).

Also, he makes the claim that a movie doesn't begin until the plot begins. That can be a fair claim, however, he goes on to say that the plot doesn't start until Floyd arrives on the space station. That is a dubious claim at best, especially since it can be easily argued that the plot begins with the monkeys learning to use tools for the first time.

As for the research...with a film like 2001 and considering on how different it is from most mainstream films of the time and today, poking around into the intentions of the film would be useful when doing a review where you plan to discuss it opposite of how it is generally viewed.

The thing here is that he is looking at the film as he would a mainstream movie. 2001 is not a mainstream movie by any means. Others might disagree with me on this, but 2001 is more an "art film" than anything else. As such, it should be viewed in that regard. For a point of comparison, it would be like looking at Die Hard the same way you would look at Dances with Wolves. You can't compare the two because they are such radically different films. Instead, it would be more appropriate to judge a particular film in context to the genre/style that it falls into. Kinda like how the Onion's AV Club does when it looks at a film.

Directors, especially ones of critical acclaim like Kubrick, are often thought of as 'auteurs' which makes them chiefly responsible for every aspect of production. In these cases, "direction" extends to script development which makes them responsible for the writing as well.

I would say the tool usage by the monkeys is not part of the plot, rather it is part of the thematic material. The monkeys are not characters, they're a symbolic image. While, yes, it is a very good symbolic image... That doesn't mean opening a film with it and delaying the the introduction of characters and plot for a long time is the best choice. Similarly the long shots of space and all that--yes, it makes a statement... But, it's not a concise statement and overextending those moments of image turn it into filler. If characters are not actively seeking goals or running into conflict... It's dead-air from a narrative perspective and in most cases should not be there.

Holding 2001 to different entertainment standards just because it is a classic, art-house film is a little dishonest. You don't need to drudge up history or research when the aim is to give a review from a modern perspective--you just need to react. The intentions or history of any film are moot, they don't justify a film when it fails a person. Matthew is largely criticizing it for a poor narrative structure, taking so long to introduce the protagonist, let alone what he is doing and why, is a failure in plot structure from most perspectives.

Academically, yes, there is merit to separating the styles of film for study, criticism, and the like. However, Matthew is not a film academic. He exists himself as an entertainer, giving his opinion of how effective he thought a film was from his own, personal perspective. This review is not a history lesson and thankfully is not structured as such.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that they thought 2001 was "deliberately anti-narrative." If that's the case, then Matthews' reactions are all especially justified given the perspective he is engaging the film with. He hasn't even begun to touch on thematic material, if he plans to.

I can understand the hostile reactions people are having to someone criticizing this film. But, chalking it up to a lack of intelligence or patience or what have you is lame, at best.

2001 has not been factually proven to be a good film, nor has any film had that honor. Sure, many critics hold it in esteem and that's all well and good. Fortunately, there's not a law that you have to agree with the majority about a film, especially when you're coming from a different perspective toward the material.

After all, if the majority decided what we had to watch and engage with we'd be forced to sit through American Idol and 2012 day in and day out... I don't think that sounds like fun.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've never seen 2001: A Space Odyssey or seen any of Confused Mathews reviews, so I have no stake in this. But I simply cannot get over the arrogance and elitism of the so called defenders of this movie.

"You don't like this movie? That's because you're too stupid to get it"
"Oh, the reason you don't like this movie is because you're too young and stupid. You grew up on MTV and have ADD. I pity you"

It's a movie people. Just because someone doesn't like the same films as you doesn't mean they're stupid or have ADD. What is it about these hard SF films that get such fierce devotion from fans?

Watch the review. It's not the fact that he doesn't like it; it's the reasons he gives for not liking it. He's a moron with no attention span.

 

[Kegg]

Right, some observations:

There are two rather consistent viewpoints offered by various 2001 fanboys, including myself, in this thread.

1. 2001 is a slow-moving and opaque art film and therefore not for everyone.
2. Confused Matthew's review(s) aren't terribly good.

This doesn't necessarily mean that I or anyone else would say that haters of 2001 or of art film in general are morons. I couldn't say the same when discussing Matthew specifically, however, but that's an opinion I've had of Matthew since long, long before he made this review, and it's based in some cases on him bashing films I'd agree are bad but doing so in an absolutely terrible way.

While I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture and like the reviews of sfdebris, for example, I didn't really have any problem with his review slamming the picture. I didn't agree with it but I didn't feel my intelligence had been insulted.

Speaking of the writing, he makes the glaring omission of mentioning Arthur C. Clark, which gives off an impression that he specifically wants to target "Kubrickans" (which I assume means Kubrick fanboys - something I never knew existed).

Well, I knew there are Kubrick fanboys (if there was a card, I'd carry it) but yeah, that does appear to be a neologism on Matthew's part. I'd guess he wants to cast his critique of 2001 the same way he's done other films - there's him, and then there's the apologetic Trekkies, er, Kubrickians, whatever.

Holding 2001 to different entertainment standards just because it is a classic, art-house film is a little dishonest.

It really, really isn't.

If, as Confused Matthew does, you implicitly reject a lot of the logic behind arthouse cinema because it doesn't conform to conventional, direct narrative ("NOTHING HAPPENS!" etc.), then your review of 2001 could be cut and pasted for a dozen art films, from legitimate classics to pretentious disasters. It may be fairer for him to just attack art films in general and then give whatever exceptions (say, art films suck except for the ones which are quick-moving with understandable narratives or whatever).

He exists himself as an entertainer,

Which IMHO he hardly excels at, as I've observed. I'd even be more forgiving of his rather dubious arguments if he simply was fun to listen to, which he is not.

2001 has not been factually proven to be a good film, nor has any film had that honor. Sure, many critics hold it in esteem and that's all well and good. Fortunately, there's not a law that you have to agree with the majority about a film, especially when you're coming from a different perspective toward the material.

After all, if the majority decided what we had to watch and engage with we'd be forced to sit through American Idol and 2012 day in and day out... I don't think that sounds like fun.

This is disengenuous. There's an obvious difference between a majority of critics and a majority of the general audience. Be forced to watch what critics demand you watch and you'd be strapping in to Mad Men and Hurt Locker instead of American Idol and 2012.

 

[J.T.B.]

I would say the tool usage by the monkeys is not part of the plot, rather it is part of the thematic material. The monkeys are not characters, they're a symbolic image.

The monolith appears in the "Dawn of Man" scenes, so how can they not be part of the plot (such as it is)?

Holding 2001 to different entertainment standards just because it is a classic, art-house film is a little dishonest. You don't need to drudge up history or research when the aim is to give a review from a modern perspective--you just need to react. The intentions or history of any film are moot, they don't justify a film when it fails a person. Matthew is largely criticizing it for a poor narrative structure, taking so long to introduce the protagonist, let alone what he is doing and why, is a failure in plot structure from most perspectives.

Academically, yes, there is merit to separating the styles of film for study, criticism, and the like. However, Matthew is not a film academic. He exists himself as an entertainer, giving his opinion of how effective he thought a film was from his own, personal perspective. This review is not a history lesson and thankfully is not structured as such.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that they thought 2001 was "deliberately anti-narrative." If that's the case, then Matthews' reactions are all especially justified given the perspective he is engaging the film with. He hasn't even begun to touch on thematic material, if he plans to.

I can understand the hostile reactions people are having to someone criticizing this film. But, chalking it up to a lack of intelligence or patience or what have you is lame, at best.

As others have pointed out, most of the posts in this thread have criticized the substance of the review, not the fact that it was a negative review.

Everyone has an opinion of a movie they've seen. I certainly have no problem with those who disagree with my opinions. When I read (or, in this case, watch) a critical review I have a certain expectation of acumen or at least familiarity with the subject on the part of the reviewer. The review I saw displayed nothing of the sort. The reviewer was basically stating, and re-stating, that he thought the move sucked because of the pacing. That's his opinion and that's fine, but it doesn't make for a very enlightening review. I could get the same level of insight from any random person who had watched the film.

Think of this: How do you show "alien-ness" in a film? Not just aliens who look different, but are so completely alien that we humans may not be able to comprehend how they think? You could have a character say something like "Gee, these aliens sure are different!" and get on with the plot. That could be perfectly satisfactory in the context of a particular film. But to not even acknowledge that Kubrick was undertaking a more conceptual and immersive and less expository examination of the theme -- whether or not he succeeded -- indicates that Confused Matthew was engaging the film on a pretty superficial level. If that makes me "elitist," I guess so be it, but it's certainly no more arrogant that declaring that Stanley Kubrick "sucks balls" as a writer.

Clearly Confused Matthew is going for "attitude" over content in his review, and if he has an audience that likes that then good for him. But I have a hard time taking what I saw there seriously. Most of the posts here, pro-2001 and con, have been more insightful than Confused Matthew's review.

--Justin

 

[Pilot Ace]

It really, really isn't.

If, as Confused Matthew does, you implicitly reject a lot of the logic behind arthouse cinema because it doesn't conform to conventional, direct narrative ("NOTHING HAPPENS!" etc.), then your review of 2001 could be cut and pasted for a dozen art films, from legitimate classics to pretentious disasters. It may be fairer for him to just attack art films in general and then give whatever exceptions (say, art films suck except for the ones which are quick-moving with understandable narratives or whatever).

Blade Runner is often considered an arthouse style film and I think it's fantastic. A wide judgment on arthouse films in general isn't necessary, it's perfectly fine to go on a case by case basis, judging films on their own without resorting to apologetic behavior based on genre or style.

Which IMHO he hardly excels at, as I've observed. I'd even be more forgiving of his rather dubious arguments if he simply was fun to listen to, which he is not.

And that's perfectly fine. You can dismiss him as entertaining, but that doesn't mean he isn't to others. IMHO, within the niche of internet reviewers, he does pretty well. Even when I disagree with him I think he's internally consistent and I see the viewpoint that he's arguing.

This is disengenuous. There's an obvious difference between a majority of critics and a majority of the general audience. Be forced to watch what critics demand you watch and you'd be strapping in to Mad Men and Hurt Locker instead of American Idol and 2012.

The sentiment is important. We're all critics, after all. Entertainment and art are all subjective with varying definitions and judgments from a variety of people. Critics just so happen get paid for their opinions.

I give more importance to narrative then I do to visual direction or in some cases even thematic material. It's not shocking that I dislike 2001 for those reasons. And it's also not shocking that it's difficult to put down a film like 2001 given its status within film culture. This is similar situation with films like Citizen Kane. The moment you declare a negative opinion on such beloved classics you must expect an attack rather than a friendly discussion.

Any person is allowed to not feel moved by a film, even if it's heralded as the most skilled composition in history. You can cite film theory for days at them, but ultimately they feel what they feel.

 

[Pilot Ace]

The monolith appears in the "Dawn of Man" scenes, so how can they not be part of the plot (such as it is)?

The monolith is certainly part of the story as it's a driving force throughout the film. But, it's existence in that scene is more like part of the setting--it's completely out of context and largely exists as symbolic imagery due to the structure of film.

There is no motivation as of yet. The monolith becomes part of the plot when it's found on the moon and then another being located near Jupiter... And our protagonists go in search of it.

Forgive me on the details, it's been years since I've seen the film and I've never enjoyed it enough to recall it particularly well.

As others have pointed out, most of the posts in this thread have criticized the substance of the review, not the fact that it was a negative review.

Everyone has an opinion of a movie they've seen. I certainly have no problem with those who disagree with my opinions. When I read (or, in this case, watch) a critical review I have a certain expectation of acumen or at least familiarity with the subject on the part of the reviewer. The review I saw displayed nothing of the sort. The reviewer was basically stating, and re-stating, that he thought the move sucked because of the pacing. That's his opinion and that's fine, but it doesn't make for a very enlightening review. I could get the same level of insight from any random person who had watched the film.

I think it goes a long way to pointing out just how plodding the film is in its use of the time it has especially in the beginning. You also have to keep in mind this is part one of a multiple parts review. He describes just how much filler, my word not his if I recall, is there before things start moving forward. He cites run times as well as presenting some of the images in order to make his point just how far the plot has advanced versus what's been on screen.

Think of this: How do you show "alien-ness" in a film? Not just aliens who look different, but are so completely alien that we humans may not be able to comprehend how they think? You could have a character say something like "Gee, these aliens sure are different!" and get on with the plot. That could be perfectly satisfactory in the context of a particular film. But to not even acknowledge that Kubrick was undertaking a more conceptual and immersive and less expository examination of the theme -- whether or not he succeeded -- indicates that Confused Matthew was engaging the film on a pretty superficial level. If that makes me "elitist," I guess so be it, but it's certainly no more arrogant that declaring that Stanley Kubrick "sucks balls" as a writer.

You have a character say that simply and you're violating film's golden rule of "show, don't tell." Kubrick does an interesting job in framing and presenting images, but my problem is that he takes ages to get on with anything. This immersion is overshadowed by the lack of plot and characters to place into these images I'm being shown.

For example, the space freak out/star gate travel scene. That goes on for almost a full ten minutes. On one hand, yes, it is representative of just how far he's traveled, removed from humanity, etc and so forth. But, that's ten minutes of ridiculous flashing lights, shifting colors, and landscape. Occasionally there is a reverse shot of our protagonist reacting to this...

But, come on, really? Is that the best way to use an audience's time? That's ten minutes of relative silence in order to make that point.

If you think it works, fine, but obviously our priorities as a film audience are vastly different.

Clearly Confused Matthew is going for "attitude" over content in his review, and if he has an audience that likes that then good for him. But I have a hard time taking what I saw there seriously. Most of the posts here, pro-2001 and con, have been more insightful than Confused Matthew's review.

--Justin

Again, this is part one. It's an introduction to the review. I would expect Matthew to critique or comment upon thematic material towards the end when it begins to come into focus with humanity reaching out for the monolith, using their tools in order to do it, etc. But, maybe he won't. I don't know.

Personally, I can't really discuss the thematic material of 2001 because the narrative could never engage me enough to really care or invest into the theme. I consider that an aspect of the film's failing for me as well.

 

[Harvey]

A couple of random points.

Directors, especially ones of critical acclaim like Kubrick, are often thought of as 'auteurs' which makes them chiefly responsible for every aspect of production. In these cases, "direction" extends to script development which makes them responsible for the writing as well.

Kubrick is an auteur because he was responsible for every aspect of the production. Of course, this is partly hyperbole, since even film of the most personal and independent construction (think of the documentary films of Ross McElwee) is still, in part, a collaborative medium.

BUT...Kubrick is credited on the film as producer and director. He's co-credited on the screenplay, and on the commentary track on the new DVD/Blu-Ray both Gary Lockwood and Keir Dullea agree that it was Kubrick that had the final say on the screenplay, not Clarke. He's credited as the creator of "special visual effects." And, though he's not credited as an editor, it's worth noticing that Kubrick waited to edit his films until after the last frame was shot, working in much closer collaboration with his editor than most directors of the period.

But, come on, really? Is that the best way to use an audience's time? That's ten minutes of relative silence in order to make that point.

I wouldn't call the blaring "Atmospheres" by Ligeti during the Stargate sequence to be "relative silence." Not at all.

 

[Kegg]

Blade Runner is often considered an arthouse style film and I think it's fantastic.

And I've never really liked it. I appreciate it enough to have it on DVD and pop it in on occasion, but as pretty as it is I've honestly always considered it far from being a truly great film. But I disgress (yet hopefully I've proven some petty anti-establishment cred for bashing a cricitically lauded film that even Roger Ebert has come around to reluctantly admitting is a classic.)

My point is I don't get the sense that Confused Matthew considers a slow pace unnecessary because X, he considers this level of pacing inherently wrong.

An alternative example: On my DVD of Solaris, the film critics believe that the extended sequence driving through the city was pointless and just something Tarkovsky did as an excuse to get a holiday to Japan. They don't have a similar problem with the film's overall rather languid pace and praise other particular passages, so it's clear that they accept the idea.

Now, I'm not saying Confused Matthew or anyone else has to accept that languid pacing is a good idea, but if you don't, then your review isn't likely to be that interesting. This is my point - it'd be like attacking an action movie for moving swiftly or showing cars explode.

And that's perfectly fine. You can dismiss him as entertaining, but that doesn't mean he isn't to others.

Naturally.

The sentiment is important. We're all critics, after all. Entertainment and art are all subjective with varying definitions and judgments from a variety of people. Critics just so happen get paid for their opinions.

Not so. Critics also went to film school and stuff. These guys are professionals, they care about and are mostly literate in film theory and film history. That doesn't mean their opinion is better than yours or mine, and it doesn't mean it's necessarily better informed (a comic book geek would get the X-Men mythos better than many film reviewers), but they're not just guys who get a paycheck for their opinions.

This also helps their writing style, which is helpful. Matthew is prone to speak in hyperbole - things are really original, the worst ever, the best ever, I get the impression from his reviews that he exists in a rather peculiar media bubble, like the world as refracted and dictated by Hollywood blockbusters from the past twenty years.

The same logic applies to TV, he once wrote a review stating that modern TV sucks because Star Trek, Saturday Night Live and the Simpsons are all past their sell-by date, and the true future of entertainment is with the Angry Video Game Nerd and Ask a Ninja. Yes, in this age of HBO and Showtime and Dexter and the Sopranos and the Wire and Mad Men, TVland sucks compared to some dweeb swearing at NES consoles or a white guy restating the same joke in every youtube video. Your reviewer, ladies and gents. I bring that up because that was the first Matthew review that I actually loathed, and it's one of his very early ones.

This is similar situation with films like Citizen Kane. The moment you declare a negative opinion on such beloved classics you must expect an attack rather than a friendly discussion.

What's very important, however, is the why. Confused Matthew's why is rarely good. And I've really disliked his whiny, insipid reviewing style over films that I personally am not fond of, like the Star Wars prequels. Heck to the best of my knowledge this is the only film Matthew's attacked I'd consider myself a 'fanboy' of, and my rather low opinion of him has existed far prior to this.

 

[Harvey]

You don't like Blade Runner! Kegg, you're trampling on sacred ground. Prepare to be attacked!

I'll never understand how someone couldn't like Citizen Kane, though. To me, it's the perfect film. But that's a rumble for another time, I suppose.

Speaking of Solaris, I've got it out from the library right now, but I've had trouble getting into it. I've only watched the first 40 minutes though, and much of those aided by the commentary track you mentioned, Kegg. What do people here think of the film?

 

[Kegg]

Speaking of Solaris, I've got it out from the library right now, but I've had trouble getting into it. I've only watched the first 40 minutes though, and much of those aided by the commentary track you mentioned, Kegg. What do people here think of the film?

It's one of my favourite sci-fi films of all time, but it does admittedly make 2001 look like a rollercoaster of high-speed fun. I think it's interesting to compare and contrast with 2001 because when one comes down to it both of the films can be seen as about religious experiences (with aliens cast in the role of God or something close), but, well, I won't go any further as you're only forty minutes or so into it.

 

[Harvey]

Well, perhaps I'll give the rest of it a try this fine afternoon. Although I also have Sans Soleil checked out, and I'm one of those weirdos that likes Chris Marker.

I must confess that I recently watched the Sodderbergh remake before the earlier version and liked it. So the concept interests me.

 

[Kegg]

Well, perhaps I'll give the rest of it a try this fine afternoon. Although I also have Sans Soleil checked out, and I'm one of those weirdos that likes Chris Marker.

Well, so am I. La Jetee at least, I'll admit for some reason I haven't seen that yet (laziness, probably.) Tell me how it is.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I think Confused Matthew would have an aneurysm were he ever to review "Stalker".