I’ve always thought of Pitt as the epitome of My Favorite Year’s distinction between actor and movie star. He’s there because he’s handsome, because the camera loves every inch of him, and because he appears personally likeable. The acting seems like a relatively superfluous bonus. You always get the impression he…

I need to see Hollywood again to fully appreciate DiCaprio, I think. He is excellent but he’s in a trickier role -- acting, acting he’s acting, acting he’s worried about acting -- that doesn’t have a clear center like Pitt/Cliff’s calm or Robie/Sharon’s joy. He’s the person driving the movie, for what drive it has,…

Heh, now I’m looking at Fight Club through the relationship of Hollywood — is Pitt the “stunt man” for his self-loathing/destructive master there as well?

*Shakespeare reads phrase “legit claims to firsties” and squints*

“Legit claim to firsties” is a pretty hilarious way of saying “wrote it.” I approve.

Nice to hear other people admit that this movie makes them cry. Always does that to me. It’s a work so monumental that it actually restores my faith in humanity.

I finally saw this movie for the first time, in 70mm no less, a couple of years ago (I’m 35).  While not perfect, I absolutely could not believe it was almost 50 years old and was honestly still amazed by the whole thing. 

I think most people are bored with 2001 the first time they see it, especially if they see it when on the small screen at home. I know I was, but there was something there that kept me coming back to it. Part of the boredom is intentional; that long of a journey in a smallish area with two people would be…

I’ve never had the pleasure, but honestly I happened to catch a little flipping channels on a big-screen TV at home a few years ago, and found the lunar sequences pretty awe-inspiring. I was fairly amazed at how much better it holds up in that regard than many other “spectacle” films released decades more recently.

The first two parts play out very well in that regard. It’s the third that’s terribly opaque, and given the length of time it plays out over, especially frustratingly so. The basic idea of “The ‘Starchild’ is the next stage of human evolution” isn’t too hard to grasp — and even the soundtrack liner notes reference it…

I took some friends to see it at Alamo Drafthouse last year. One of whom can’t stand any movie slower than an MCU film, and they all loved it. I have seen it twice in a theater, and will try and do so at every opportunity in the futre. just an amazing movie, but one you really do have to see on the big screen to “get”.

Yeah, I feel like the space baby thing is easy to parse when you step back from the film a moment—monkeys find a monolith, it changes them, they become the descendants of humans. Humans find a monolith, it changes them, the first one to reach it becomes a huge space baby. It’s clear that the movie is about the…

That’s like complaining that impressionist paintings are too blurry.

This is really cool context, thanks for sharing.

There’s an odd little back reference in the scene where HAL is disabled that I fear is virtually lost to time now. HAL sings Bicycle Built for Two (Daisy, Daisy...) as the computer modules are taken offline. This calls back to a TV series that was hosted by Walter Cronkite called the Twenty First Century, a follow up…

“(The makeup remains incredible more than 50 years later; those things never look like mimes in costume.)“

“2001” was my first art damage experience. My parents took me to see it at the drive in the year after it had been released. By the end of the film my Dad and siblings were sound asleep but I was transfixed with bulging eyes glued to the screen. I was a bit of a sci-fi kid having grown up on the Irwin Allen shows and…

Maybe you’d have gotten here sooner if you hadn’t stopped off at the 18th Century French Zoo for Humans again!

SORRY! I GOT HERE LATE!

You’re totally right - this *is* an unpopular opinion.