Christopher Nolan Returns Kubrick Sci-Fi Masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' To Its Original Glory (latimes.com)

LA Times' Kenneth Turan traces Christopher Nolan's meticulous restoration of Kubrick's masterpiece to its 70-mm glory: Christopher Nolan wants to show me something interesting. Something beautiful and exceptional, something that changed his life when he was a boy. It's also something that Nolan, one of the most accomplished and successful of contemporary filmmakers, has persuaded Warner Bros. to share with the world both at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival and then in theaters nationwide, but in a way that boldly deviates from standard practice.

For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.

Comments

Too Bad

[sexconker]

Too bad the movie sucks. It's one of the most overrated movies of all time. It's slow, boring, and non-sensical.

It's a Kubric film, so if you turn up the volume you can hear him softly masturbating throughout each long, drawn out scene.
It's based on Clarke's work, so you may as well turn it off half way through and make up your own ending. You'll get a better result than Clarke, and you'll get it much sooner.

Oh, look! Here come the zealots to tell me how I'm too stupid to "get" it, how the scenes at the end make sense if you take acid while lobotomizing yourself, and how the grand imagery and fairly accurate depictions of space somehow make a turd into a diamond. Nope, sorry.

Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket? I like what I saw, but the projectionist swapped in a different film halfway through. Strangely, this mistake has been repeated on every video/DVD/etc. release I've seen so far. If you need some help finishing, maybe give John Kricfalusi a call, he's known for timely work!

Re:Too Bad

[jfdavis668]

Sorry, but I find it one of the greatest movies ever made. It's one I often watch again. Except for the 20 min color montage toward the end, I fast forward through that. The movie uses perspectives that aren't often used in motion pictures any more, and rarely in the past. It works to put you into the perspective of the subject, and you only know what he knows. It doesn't explain the situation to you, you have to experience it and figure it out just as the subject does, too. People don't seem to like movies that make you think, they want everything handed to them so they can sit there like a lump.

Re:Too Bad

[UnknownSoldier]

I highly would recommend Meditation and/or Fishing to help with your monkey mind -- constantly jumping from thought to thought without taking a moment to analyze where the thought came from; unable to enjoy the moment for what it is.

Re:Too Bad

[Thelasko]

Too bad the movie sucks. It's one of the most overrated movies of all time. It's slow, boring, and non-sensical.

I enjoy the film, but agree that these are totally valid critiques. A lot is open to interpretation, the ending especially so.

In defense of the slow and boring. That's how space travel would be. Clarke and Kubrick were striving to be realistic. This movie is a stark contrast to the shoot-em-up action of most science fiction movies. However, mixing that realism with its heavy metaphors was a confusing choice.

Although I think it's still incredible to this day, it should also be noted this was 1968. 2001 was revolutionary in its day. Not as much now. (I give the Beatles the same handicap. I don't think most of their music stands the test of time, but it was revolutionary in its day. Go ahead, flame me)

Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket? I like what I saw, but the projectionist swapped in a different film halfway through. Strangely, this mistake has been repeated on every video/DVD/etc. release I've seen so far. If you need some help finishing, maybe give John Kricfalusi a call, he's known for timely work!

Oh, yeah. There are is a major continuity issue with Full Metal Jacket. It feels like two separate movies, with the first being more enjoyable. I argue that it was likely done on purpose, to mark the contrast between training and actual war.

Kubrick was the kind of director that was in it for the art, like it or not. A lot of directors crank out film after film to keep a steady paycheck. He was slow and methodical, until it was the way he wanted it. (although he did edit 2001 after the first screening due to complaints similar to yours)

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a complex allegory

No it's not.

It's a boring, meandering story that doesn't make sense. The phrases "it's deep" and "you just don't get it" are always the first clue that something isn't very good.

Re: Too Bad

[Monster_user]

2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't provide much to think about anymore either. Movie audiences have typically been exposed to a significant portion of the contents of 2001, or even better rendentions. Half the movie is concepts which evolved into much more practical and fully formed things which are common today, be they ideas, narrative constructs (plots/universe building), or technologies.

The universe which 2001 builds is a rather small one compared to the worlds most audiences are used to these days, and it shrinks down to practically nothing at the end. It isn't rich and detailed, it is bland and uninteresting. There isn't anything to imagine which requires 2001 as a source material, there is nothing unique to 2001 anymore.

Finally, the "scientific" notions, concepts, and ideas, are not just old hat, they are rather imprecise and inaccurate. As often as that is the case, 2001 gives the impression of a higher quality, more "high brow" work, and its failings in scientific areas are distracting, especially when there is so little else to focus on.

Timeless film

[TheZeitgeist]

2001 still most compelling sci-fi movie ever made. Haters can't stand the long cut scenes etc., but then go watch a (so fake its painful to watch) CGI Midtown fall down in 'new' way for Avengers 57 or whatever.

Re:Timeless film

[TheZeitgeist]

Well, with the current Avengers nipping on the heels of generating a billion dollars in just over a week ... you pretty much have to recognise that it's clearly what people want.

Absolutely that tripe is what people want. Along with Big Macs and another report on Kendall Jenner's choice of latte on Tuesdays. Mass-market crap is just that. I will say this though, in 50 years nobody is going to talk about Infinity Blade or Kendall Jenner (jury's out on Big Macs) as they discuss the 100th anniversary of this film.

Full comprehension

[NEDHead]

I saw this when it first came out, as an adult and fan of SciFi. I came away secure in the knowledge that I understood the point of the movie every bit as completely as Kubrick - which was not at all. Nice visuals for the time. A plot would have been a nice touch.

Its provides a window into the past.

[Monster_user]

Star Trek The Motion Picture tried to match the pacing. The series did not retain that slow pace. Most will agree that it is too slow.

That said, we are on the far side of history from this film. Much of the awe and wonder is passé, we've seen it so many times before. Many of the technological advances of the film have already been surpassed in this decade.

In addition, the artistic and ambiguous ending has already been brought closer to reality in other media, tales, and plotlines. It is more interesting now as a historical piece to give us insight into the limitations of the imaginations of previous generations.