Most overhyped movies.

Drew wrote: BaldJean wrote: Drew wrote: I watched it stone sober and was absolutely bored to death  (2001)  no wonder. your generation has been buried beneath fast-paced blockbusters. you simply can't appreciate a slow tempo. I hate molst modern movies; hardly any director takes the time to really tell a story. it is just one action scene after the other. and that bores me to death My generation? I'm no teenager I happen to like a lot of slower paced films, I rarely EVER like "blockbuster" movies. I have taken two film classes, and fell in love with real films!

Don't get me wrong- I thought the visuals were outstanding given the year of production- I just felt a full hour could have been shaved from the film. 

Drew wrote: BaldJean wrote: Drew wrote: I watched it stone sober and was absolutely bored to death  (2001)  no wonder. your generation has been buried beneath fast-paced blockbusters. you simply can't appreciate a slow tempo. I hate molst modern movies; hardly any director takes the time to really tell a story. it is just one action scene after the other. and that bores me to death My generation? I'm no teenager I happen to like a lot of slower paced films, I rarely EVER like "blockbuster" movies. I have taken two film classes, and fell in love with real films!

I think that if dropped some acid just before the Jupiter sequence I think you might  find it a bit more interesting. Some people have been known to have done this. But I dunno. In 1968 when the film was released one critic with the LA Times simply wrote " An LSD trip without the LSD. "  

I tend to find that come awards season, that there is generally only 1 or 2 movies nominated for awards each year that really interest or interested me.  The rest tend to be movies that I have no interest in ever seeing.

Drew wrote: Don't get me wrong- I thought the visuals were outstanding given the year of production- I just felt a full hour could have been shaved from the film.

I would not know what to cut out. the movie can be be seen as in 4 parts:
1) the dawning of mankid
2) on the way to and on the moon
3) in space
4) inside the monolith

the first part is usually the least liked but is actually my favorite; great acting from all.
the second and third part are probaby those where you want to cut out stuff. but Kubrick wanted you to feel the journey, to experience what it is like being in space. watch the little details: the tablet with the food floating away, the phone call home to the daughter who wants a bushbaby (notice the delay in the answers; Kubrick thought of that as well, while most other space movies have the communiation happen instanly; a notable exception is "Silent Running"). if you let him take you on this journey into space then the movie is great. if not, then I agree it is boring

Troy

The Davinci Code

harmonium.ro wrote: I don't think Drew doesn't like 2001 because of today's generation's attention span and of a supposed incapacity to put things into perspective. Hell, people and specialists from 1969 certainly had better attention span and better view of the context, so why didn't they see it as the huge accomplishment it is? Why did they give the "Best Film" Oscar to "Oliver!" and didn't even nominate 2001 for this section. They only gave it the "Visual Effects" Oscar. IMO people of today have a better perspective of 2001; for example the people on IMDB (which represents this decade's opinion) rated 2001 with 8.4 and Oliver! with 7.6.

well, people who sit in award-giving commitees are often not chosen for their abilities of judgement but rather for reasons of convenience. controversial figures rarely become members of these boards. this is especially true for the academy awards commitee

harmonium.ro wrote: ^ If I know right, the Oscars are given by representatives of the American Film Academy, but this, contrary to the appearances, doesn not necessarily contradict you

that's why in my comment I did not refer to the American Film Academy but more generally to committees of that kind

^ I wasn't saying that, I was implying the exact opposite, thanks for noticing 

I was just going along with the argumentation brought against you and trying to prove it's wrong. T'was fun.  I think it's all in the taste, as you also said.