I've got a DVD that has "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Forbidden Planet," "Soylent Green," and "The Time Machine." I haven't played it yet because I don't know which one to watch first. So I'm asking the forum what their collective will thinks, and I'll watch the movies in order of the highest votes.
P.S. - "The Time Machine" is the one from 1960 featuring Rod Taylor, not the latest POS to bear the name.
How about A Boy and His Dog?
Or Clockwork Orange?
Those are not on the DVD he has.
So? He could watch them on Netflix.
Maybe it's because it's not my generation, but I find 2001 incredibly boring.
I've got a DVD that has "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Forbidden Planet," "Soylent Green," and "The Time Machine." I haven't played it yet because I don't know which one to watch first. So I'm asking the forum what their collective will thinks, and I'll watch the movies in order of the highest votes.
P.S. - "The Time Machine" is the one from 1960 featuring Rod Taylor, not the latest POS to bear the name.
2001 is a good movie but really slow. I mean REALLLLLY slow. If you're into that I'd go for it first. But beyond that I'd go for Soylent Green. I don't know much about Forbidden Planet and the Time Machine (especially if its the new version) never impressed me much.
2001 is entirely about presentation. Yes, it has a story, but it's not really about that. It's presenting the wonders of the imagined future. It moves slow since instead of pressing the story, it presses the shots. So we get a long scene inside the space shuttle that does not move the plot at all, but shows zero-G and how it is handled. The story does not really get moving until well over an hour in, when Hal loses it.
I have to agree. If the movie focused more on the story, it would have made more sense without having to read the book to pick up the bits that were not in the movie. Such as the point of the monolith, why HAL loses it, the whole shot at the end with the old man and the baby. (I badly want to state why, but I should not give out spoilers)
I do think that if the movie had focused more on the story however, it would not have been as great a movie. This is especially true considering the context of when it was made. In 1968, space and space travel where all new, and pretty unknown. People thought of space travel in terms of Star Trek.
I have to agree. If the movie focused more on the story, it would have made more sense without having to read the book to pick up the bits that were not in the movie. Such as the point of the monolith, why HAL loses it (its different in the book), the whole shot at the end with the old man and the baby. (I badly want to state why, but I should not give out spoilers)
I truly recommend reading the book, its awesome, even if it made some assumptions that are laughable today (like everything he writes about how a computer works, but you can't blame the guy he was quite innovative), its a great story and makes some interesting statements about human nature and humanity itself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?